Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

oldmacs

macrumors 601
Sep 14, 2010
4,923
7,110
Australia
Moments are the same thing as Events (every photo was in one and only one Event, now they are in one and only one Moment). You just cannot create the 'Events' anymore yourself, you cannot decide which images they contain and what they are called and you cannot their order or put them into folders. Moments have the same function as Events (they are the primary organisational structure for your images), you just don't have control over them anymore.

Events in iPhoto are what Projects in Aperture are, what Finder folders are for all types of files, what 'imported' Finder folders in Lightroom are. They are the location where your images are, same applies for Moments. You have just been 'relieved of the burden' to create them and to name them (no more dozens of 'Untitled 1', 'Untitled 2', etc.).


You just contradicted yourself. You say moments are the same thing as events then go onto stay how they are different. Moments only have half the functionality that Events have.

Events could be named, I could choose what photos were in events, I could change the order - I had control over them. Photos is so half arsed in its implantation that you can not do any of that, and its fairly rubbish if you've been a loyal iPhoto user for the past 10 years like I have, you can not continue your last 10 years of organisation of photos in a logical way. However I guess thats the Apple way - destroy everything that works, implant a half baked solution and then over 5 years slowly add in the missing features, only to start again to loose functionality again. (Aka iMovie, Aka Final cut).

There has been no 'Relief of burden' - Its just made everything more complex. Apple should have maintained functionally in iPhoto, even if it had to be turned on via a menu.
 

manu chao

macrumors 604
Jul 30, 2003
7,219
3,031
And I think this is exactly the problem. My sense is that the design philosophy now is not, how do we build the best app? The philosophy is, how do we build an app that will work more or less the same way in OS X as in iOS? And everything's a tradeoff, and I am sure there are people who are pleased that cross-platform harmony is the priority, but I think that in this case the OS X experience has suffered badly on behalf of iOS compatibility.
I benefit greatly from being able to sort through all the images that are on my iPhone (essentially those taken with the iPhone) using my Mac. Much easier than trying to do this on the iPhone.

Of course, if I had to use Photos to organise the images I take with 'real' cameras, that would be a disaster. But that is not what Photos is made for (though you can use for that if you only do some light organisational work with your 'real camera' images). Photos is made for people who don't want to do any organisational work, you largely consider their images as a single, long timeline (with occasionally picking some images and put them into an album for easy access).
 
  • Like
Reactions: LauraJean

BKF

macrumors regular
Apr 6, 2006
118
18
Brooklyn, NY
Moments are the same thing as Events (every photo was in one and only one Event, now they are in one and only one Moment). You just cannot create the 'Events' anymore yourself, you cannot decide which images they contain and what they are called and you cannot their order or put them into folders. Moments have the same function as Events (they are the primary organisational structure for your images), you just don't have control over them anymore.

Events in iPhoto are what Projects in Aperture are, what Finder folders are for all types of files, what 'imported' Finder folders in Lightroom are. They are the location where your images are, same applies for Moments. You have just been 'relieved of the burden' to create them and to name them (no more dozens of 'Untitled 1', 'Untitled 2', etc.).
Well, with all due respect, you can't say they're the same thing, and then provide a substantial list of substantial differences. And it was never a "burden" to name them; if you didn't name them, they were organized by date just as in Photo. But you had the option to name them, and as far as organizing photos went it was a hugely helpful thing to be able to do.
 

BKF

macrumors regular
Apr 6, 2006
118
18
Brooklyn, NY
I benefit greatly from being able to sort through all the images that are on my iPhone (essentially those taken with the iPhone) using my Mac. Much easier than trying to do this on the iPhone.

Of course, if I had to use Photos to organise the images I take with 'real' cameras, that would be a disaster. But that is not what Photos is made for (though you can use for that if you only do some light organisational work with your 'real camera' images). Photos is made for people who don't want to do any organisational work, you largely consider their images as a single, long timeline (with occasionally picking some images and put them into an album for easy access).
But iPhoto didn't require any more organizational work than Photo; it just gave you the option of greater control. And I do take more photos with my iPhone than any other camera, but, yes, I have another camera that I use, too, and so do a lot of people, and I just don't buy that this tentpole program from Apple can't be expected to handle that with grace and ease of use.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davemchine

manu chao

macrumors 604
Jul 30, 2003
7,219
3,031
You just contradicted yourself. You say moments are the same thing as events then go onto stay how they are different. Moments only have half the functionality that Events have.
They fulfil the same function, they are the canonical location for your images. Every image that gets imported goes into a Moment (the same way every image that was imported into iPhoto went into an Event). You just don't have the ability to change anything about them. In iPhoto, Events were also auto-created upon import as well as auto-named.

Events could be named, I could choose what photos were in events, I could change the order - I had control over them. Photos is so half arsed in its implantation that you can not do any of that, and its fairly rubbish if you've been a loyal iPhoto user for the past 10 years like I have, you can not continue your last 10 years of organisation of photos in a logical way.
Welcome to software from Apple. Photos is a different take on organising images than iPhoto. Products get discontinued, that's life. I was an Aperture user, your pains with Photos coming from iPhoto are nothing compared to previous Aperture users. But I actually like Photos, just not as a replacement for Aperture. Aperture is gone and I have moved on. If Photos is not your cup of tea, you should do the same.
There has been no 'Relief of burden' - Its just made everything more complex.
Not for you but for others. Many people have or had a very messy organisation of their images. Photos creates some clear structure for those users.
Apple should have maintained functionally in iPhoto, even if it had to be turned on via a menu.
When has Apple ever maintained functionality when it did some major changes?
 

oldmacs

macrumors 601
Sep 14, 2010
4,923
7,110
Australia
They fulfil the same function, they are the canonical location for your images. Every image that gets imported goes into a Moment (the same way every image that was imported into iPhoto went into an Event). You just don't have the ability to change anything about them. In iPhoto, Events were also auto-created upon import as well as auto-named.

Yet they don't fufu the same function as moments are not editable, or customisable in any way and do not allow a continuation of previous organisation, can not be named etc as has already been discussed. I don't want photos to organise for me as that makes no sense in continuing my last 10 years of photo organisation.

Welcome to software from Apple. Photos is a different take on organising images than iPhoto. Products get discontinued, that's life. I was an Aperture user, your pains with Photos coming from iPhoto are nothing compared to previous Aperture users. But I actually like Photos, just not as a replacement for Aperture. Aperture is gone and I have moved on. If Photos is not your cup of tea, you should do the same.

Its not just a different take, its a complete dumbing down and the destruction of good features. There are no alternatives to iPhoto that allow me to preserve my meticulous photo organisation. But I guess when we have to defend everything Apple does, then you just accept these things.

Not for you but for others. Many people have or had a very messy organisation of their images. Photos creates some clear structure for those users.

And Apple could have given both. like they do with mail for example. You can turn on classic view and get rid of threaded mail, preserving the old functionality. Wouldn't have killed Apple, but perhaps if they didn't force changes on people, then no one would adopt some of their perceived 'better' methods for doing things.
 

manu chao

macrumors 604
Jul 30, 2003
7,219
3,031
But iPhoto didn't require any more organizational work than Photo; it just gave you the option of greater control.
So, iPhoto created the equivalent of Collections and Years automatically for you as Photos does?
And I do take more photos with my iPhone than any other camera, but, yes, I have another camera that I use, too, and so do a lot of people, and I just don't buy that this tentpole program from Apple can't be expected to handle that with grace and ease of use.
It handles it with grace for those that are content with single timeline of images. Just accept that iPhoto is no more and move on.
 

Juicy Box

macrumors 604
Sep 23, 2014
7,517
8,849
I find Photos unintuitive, hard to use and lacking some necessary basic features. It seems like a sketch of an app idea but not like a finished product. I tried it a few times but it just doesn't work for me.
You are describing how I feel about almost every product Apple has released lately.
 
  • Like
Reactions: -hh and colourfastt

manu chao

macrumors 604
Jul 30, 2003
7,219
3,031
Yet they don't fufu the same function as moments are not editable, or customisable in any way and do not allow a continuation of previous organisation, can not be named etc as has already been discussed. I don't want photos to organise for me as that makes no sense in continuing my last 10 years of photo organisation.
Neither does it for me as a previous Aperture user. Which is why I don't use Photos to organise my main image library. Instead of getting worked up, you should do the same.
Its not just a different take, its a complete dumbing down and the destruction of good features. There are no alternatives to iPhoto that allow me to preserve my meticulous photo organisation.
There are no other photo management applications available on Macs?
But I guess when we have to defend everything Apple does, then you just accept these things.
I defend Apple's right to make decisions that it thinks are good for many of its users and good for Apple.

Remember, I was an Aperture user. Do I welcome their decision to discontinue Aperture? Definitely not. Do I defend their right to do so? Absolutely.
 

oldmacs

macrumors 601
Sep 14, 2010
4,923
7,110
Australia
I defend Apple's right to make decisions that it thinks are good for many of its users and good for Apple.

Sure they have a right to make decisions, but you don't have to defend those decisions, just because Apple has a right to. I personally thing given how much money and resources they have, they should be more than capable of delivering solutions that make things easier for users, as well as maintaining features. They are just too up themselves to do so, or too lazy to do so.

There are no other photo management applications available on Macs?

Go find me one that allows me to import my events and continue using them.[/QUOTE]
 
  • Like
Reactions: ShinySteelRobot

trifid

macrumors 68020
May 10, 2011
2,070
4,945
Its not just a different take, its a complete dumbing down and the destruction of good features. There are no alternatives to iPhoto that allow me to preserve my meticulous photo organisation. But I guess when we have to stick for everything Apple does, then you just accept these things.

Preach brother. What Photos app did, the dumbing down, it's absolutely indefensible, I'm not sure how anyone is attempting to defend it considering Apple killed both Aperture and iPhoto and gave no good pathway for users that had invested heavily in them.
 

oldmacs

macrumors 601
Sep 14, 2010
4,923
7,110
Australia
Preach brother. What Photos app did, the dumbing down, it's absolutely indefensible, I'm not sure how anyone is attempting to defend it considering Apple killed both Aperture and iPhoto and gave no good pathway for users that had invested heavily in them.

Exactly. Though its apparently more important for Apple to invest in putting Apple Music on android than helping out its own customers who invested a lot of money into applications. I bought iPhoto 05, 06, 08, 09 and 11. Apple could have simply integrated events into photos, even if it was a setting that was by default off, but no. Users might choose that option over Apple's new preferred photo management.
 

Larry-K

macrumors 68000
Jun 28, 2011
1,888
2,340
Preach brother. What Photos app did, the dumbing down, it's absolutely indefensible, I'm not sure how anyone is attempting to defend it considering Apple killed both Aperture and iPhoto and gave no good pathway for users that had invested heavily in them.
Heard that sermon before.
 
  • Like
Reactions: trifid

trifid

macrumors 68020
May 10, 2011
2,070
4,945
Exactly. Though its apparently more important for Apple to invest in putting Apple Music on android than helping out its own customers who invested a lot of money into applications. I bought iPhoto 05, 06, 08, 09 and 11.

I still holding out on iPhoto for now, and I'm not a heavy user, so if Apple decides to redeem themselves with the Photos app, I might consider it, but deep down I know I should switch to Lightroom, a trustworthy app from a trustworthy company that will never pull the dumbing down moves Apple likes to do on their pro apps.
 

oldmacs

macrumors 601
Sep 14, 2010
4,923
7,110
Australia
I still holding out on iPhoto for now, and I'm not a heavy user, so if Apple decides to redeem themselves with the Photos app, I might consider it, but deep down I know I should switch to Lightroom, a trustworthy app from a trustworthy company that will never pull the dumbing down moves Apple likes to do on their pro apps.

I am also still on iPhoto. I don't know where to next. If Apple makes the Photos App usable, I'll move to it, but I highly doubt they will. Pages, Numbers and Keynote are still missing features from iWork 09 and its been 2 and a half years.
 

manu chao

macrumors 604
Jul 30, 2003
7,219
3,031
Right. But can I rename a Moment, or am I just stuck with Apple's Location and Date designation for it?
No you cannot, Moments are simply not-renamable Events.
And can I combine moments, or divide them?
No, Moments are Events that cannot be combined or divided.

That's what I miss about Events. It made images much easier to organize and to find via a search.
The name these things have are just that: Names. There was nothing special about Events. Events were a fancy name for what is called a folder in the Finder (with the difference that we had 'folders' in iPhoto/Aperture that could only contain images and 'folders' that could only contain folders, including the first kind of folder). In Photos these folders are called Moments and they have other restrictions than the 'folders' inside iPhoto.

One thing that Years, Collections and Moments in Photos achieve is that you are never presented with a list of folders, you always only see images with at most a label above a group of images. That is what makes images different than other kinds of files, you can just always show a set of previews or thumbnails of them and the user can view all images at once and pick any of them. That wouldn't work with your Word files. I think it is very much worth having an application that allows us to wade through a sae of images that we don't have the energy to organise ourselves.

And while one could argue that an application could offer a Photos-like view (with Year, Collections, and Moments categories) of all images as well as a hierarchical one of folders and subfolders, I don't think our minds can easily use both types or organisation effectively. You have an inner image of where your images are, and it'll be either one of those two, meaning you'll largely only use of them and the other one is rather a distraction. Apple has made a decision for one of them with Photos and if it is not the one you prefer than Photos simply isn't for you.
 

pat500000

Suspended
Jun 3, 2015
8,523
7,515
Don't we all see the past through rose-tinted glasses?
OS X 10.0 -> 6 months
OS X 10.1 -> 11 months
OS X 10.2 -> 14 months
OS X 10.3 -> 18 months
OS X 10.4 -> 30 months (transition to Intel)
OS X 10.5 -> 22 months
OS X 10.6 -> 23 months

So when was that fabled period with 2-4 year intervals?
I stand corrected but my point is valid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: oldmacs

manu chao

macrumors 604
Jul 30, 2003
7,219
3,031
Sure they have a right to make decisions, but you don't have to defend those decisions, just because Apple has a right to.
That's the point were we differ. I simply think that no-one has an entitlement to things not changing. But I also defend Apple here because I like Photos (as an organiser of my iPhone images) and I think there are many more people that take essentially only take images with their iPhone than those that also use a separate camera. By catering to the former, much larger group, I think Apple is helping more people than if it catered to the other group. Which is a good thing in the overall scheme of things.

Go find me one that allows me to import my events and continue using them.
I am much more familiar with Aperture than iPhoto and there are tools like Aperture Exporter (as well as Aperture import plugin for Lightroom). To use the former with an iPhoto library, you however need to have Aperture installed. But moving from one non-destructive editor to another is always going to be somewhat painful as you have to create JPEG or TIFF copies of all your adjusted images to keep those adjustments which takes up a lot of space (in particular if you go for the highest quality option, 16-bit Tiffs) and bakes those adjustments in so you cannot modify any adjustments later anymore. There are some exceptions, Capture One for example can read the major Aperture adjustments and tries to re-apply them using its adjustment tools, though that certainly isn't a perfect solution.

Software gets discontinued from time to time. Even if Lightroom might be a pretty save bet, one can argue that there is a risk of it going subscription-only which might prompt some users to look for an alternative. I for once are still stuck with Adobe CS6 for my Illustrator and InDesign needs and I might have to switch to other applications when they stop working.
[doublepost=1456451073][/doublepost]
I stand corrected but my point is valid.
And I guess my point, that you view the past to some degree through rose-tinted glasses is also valid.
 

Idgit

macrumors 6502a
Mar 14, 2004
551
158
Just kill all the bugs. Make it a bug hunt. Because, with El Capitan, the bugs are winning and it ain't pretty.

rZ1zIfz.gif
 

MacAddict1978

macrumors 68000
Jun 21, 2006
1,650
883
#1 - Lock your phone?
#2 - I'm sure third party apps exist that allow you to do this.

I'm pretty sure you're in a minority of people who think this feature should be added.

1. Sometimes you let someone use your phone and they accidentally open things
2. Sure.... on android. Unless you don't want to use the native photos app and give up all the syncing that makes the apple unified experience the reason you buy an iPhone/mac/etc in the first place
3. Sometimes you're showing pics in your camera roll to friends or coworkers... or gads, family... and oops, you scrolled too far.
4. The OSX photos screen saver.... well, yeah, imagine company in your living room and it starts a slide show of certain kinds of pics....

And I'm pretty sure he's not in the minority. Welcome to the modern world where people send pics of their penis and chicks who take pics of their naughty bits and take sex selfies they don't want grandma to see. It would ruin thanksgiving and give a whole new meaning to stuffing the bird or how to make a jello mold. Not to mention the porn people store on their devices. Yes, PORN! That things spouses want to pretend you don't have and you don't dare put on your computer. I'm sorry if your life is not so adventurous that you have no photos you want to keep private, but for most everyone else.... we do. Especially if you use your phone for work related items. Imagine the horror of meaning to attach a marketing ad and you send you boss you penis. IOS makes that way to easy to do.

Not being crude, just real. Anyone under the age of 40 is highly likely to have some type of picture on their phone they would rather not have seen by certain parties.

This doesn't protect the fools that end up on guyswithiphones.com that freely share such pics, but alas, why it's not a feature is amazing.
 

pat500000

Suspended
Jun 3, 2015
8,523
7,515
That's the point were we differ. I simply think that no-one has an entitlement to things not changing. But I also defend Apple here because I like Photos (as an organiser of my iPhone images) and I think there are many more people that take essentially only take images with their iPhone than those that also use a separate camera. By catering to the former, much larger group, I think Apple is helping more people than if it catered to the other group. Which is a good thing in the overall scheme of things.


I am much more familiar with Aperture than iPhoto and there are tools like Aperture Exporter (as well as Aperture import plugin for Lightroom). To use the former with an iPhoto library, you however need to have Aperture installed. But moving from one non-destructive editor to another is always going to be somewhat painful as you have to create JPEG or TIFF copies of all your adjusted images to keep those adjustments which takes up a lot of space (in particular if you go for the highest quality option, 16-bit Tiffs) and bakes those adjustments in so you cannot modify any adjustments later anymore. There are some exceptions, Capture One for example can read the major Aperture adjustments and tries to re-apply them using its adjustment tools, though that certainly isn't a perfect solution.

Software gets discontinued from time to time. Even if Lightroom might be a pretty save bet, one can argue that there is a risk of it going subscription-only which might prompt some users to look for an alternative. I for once are still stuck with Adobe CS6 for my Illustrator and InDesign needs and I might have to switch to other applications when they stop working.
[doublepost=1456451073][/doublepost]
And I guess my point, that you view the past to some degree through rose-tinted glasses is also valid.
Insulting aren't u?
 

manu chao

macrumors 604
Jul 30, 2003
7,219
3,031
Insulting aren't u?
What is your explanation for significantly overestimating the measure (longevity of major OS X versions) that your argument that things were better in the past was based on? You felt things were better in the past but overestimated by how much they were better by about a factor of two. Isn't that a textbook case of memory being too generous with the past?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.