Aperture Replacement 'Photos' to Offer Image Search, Editing, Effects and Plugins

[kurosov]

There are still many features that aperture has that we have had no mention of in photos.

Also, while not exactly a feature I hope they have allowed for moving all the adjustment tools to e left hand side. As a left handed person who uses a Wacom tablet it's a complete pain in the arse when apps force tools on the right side of the screen. Even if photos gets all the aperture features and runs faster, such a change to workflow is something I couldn't live with. So far I'm still panning on using the current aperture release for as long as possible.

Really, I'd have loved it if they'd revamped aperture and released a companion ipad app for importing and meta tagging/rating photos ready to be imported into aperture.

 

[Analog Kid]

I use Aperture for organization beyond all else. If Photos reads Aperture's library, retains or improves the keywording interface, retains or improves the faces and places interface while letting me keep all of my files on local storage, I'll be happy.

I also use Aperture for global edits. It's quite good at the basics. If Photos retains most of these capabilities I'll be happy. Plugins are nice, and all, but it provides a different interface to every tool which is, well, awkward at best.

Does anyone know if it's straight forward to find every version in a library with edits applied, export that version as a TIFF or PSD, and reimport it? I'm realizing my love for non-destructive editing and cheap versions may have left my finals a bit vulnerable.

 

[haravikk]

The other thing I'm interested in is whether this is going to start a trend; for example, will we see a Movies app to combine Quicktime Player and iMovie? It may not be too far fetched as Quicktime Player has gained some pretty nifty editing tools (even if we've lost most output formats since Quicktime 7 and earlier), combining iMovie type editing and making an app centred around a library of movie content would be a great thing to have.

It's definitely something I want to see more of, as iTunes is a monster that currently tries to monopolise content in an unwieldy app that stores everything under ~/Music, which is just a mess. I know it doesn't really handle photos at the moment anyway, but I'm hoping Apple might be looking to split content out into more focused apps aimed toward one type of media each, combining library (in the correct folder), and editor, with background cloud sync if available.

Plus I just really want a properly redesigned Quicktime Player, as X has been very disappointing, plus I think the Quicktime name has become a bit of a relic; tons of new users don't even know what it is exactly. That and I want bloaTunes to be put down, while it still plays music decently, nearly every other feature just gets in the way, it's not very good for managing movies/TV shows, and the integration of the store is still pretty poor, focused apps is definitely the way to go, especially if they can rip the iOS syncing component out into a separate service.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

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.

Perhaps you misinterpreted what I meant because that isn't it. I am positive that tasks like import and exporting and editing all will be able to be done offline. What I'm suggesting is the possibility that the Photos app will have no ability to store full res photos offline within the app. Apple has already said that Photos key feature will be to sync editing across all devices.

If that is the case there is no way an iPad can store the GBs of high res pictures that a pro or hobbyist might have in Aperture files. So if Photos requires all photos one has in the app to be simultaneously displayed on all of one's devices there has to be a central server to store the high res original. The simplest solution (and Apple makes products with the least tech savvy person in mind) is to use iCloud, not one's Mac hard drive, as that server. Apple has, in fact, said, iCloud will be central to Photo's functionality, we just don't know how central.

So then the Photos app on each device will store a low res screen preview which is fully editable offline with the changes being sent to the iCloud master file when back online. The user could download each high res master picture to their Mac, sure, but they would have to have a different program to keep high res curated files offline.

----------

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.

Even when the Mac Pro and Final Cut Pro updates were MIA Apple hinted to pros that something was in the works either directly or via proxy. Executives in the industry are a lot more knowledgable about their competitors product research and cycles than we are. They knew, as everyone else, that Aperture was a dead program running.

If Adobe wanted to release a Lightroom Elements it would. John Nack is sitting in his office waiting with baited breath to see what Apple is doing with Aperture before making his own product announcements on a consumer version of one of his products.

What Aperture, LR, etc. do is really for hobbyists and pros. Consumers have no desire or need for such detailed controls and curation. Really a moot point.

 

[ppenn]

"Apple has promised that existing Aperture"

Does this mean Yosemite won't support Aperture?

 

[DaffyDuck]

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.

That's not really saying much since there are less and more sophisticated noise reduction algorithms available. Cameras have fast but relatively unsophisticated NR algorithms built in, whereas Photoshop has more sophisticated but slower NR.

----------

No, I'm basing it on past Apple software that started off a disappointment:

iCloud
iWork
Final Cut Pro
Mobile Me

Pretty safe bet I think

Don't forget Quicktime X as well as the Airport Utility, both which removed a lot of features.

 

[rhoydotp]

Apple should either do it right (layers, masking, non-destructive edits, etc.) or they shouldn't bother.

I agree ... these have been sorely missing from Aperture.

 

[Wiesenlooser]

I dont know about aperture, but that photos app could seriously replace iPhoto which has been a pretty pain for me. It might just be one of the slowest Apps ever.

 

[rhoydotp]

Capture1 isn't an option for me, at least until they start supporting plugins (I do a lot of work in with Nik software).

I also do a lot of work on the Nik software (Viveza/Silver Efex). I wonder if Nik/Google will port the plugin to work with Photos ... that would suck big time if it doesn't

 

[jadot]

Can Apple even trademark the name "Photos"?

In exactly the same way one could trademark, say, I dunno? "aperture"?

----------

So by next year you mean this fall.

No. By next year I mean next year when Apple release Photos.

----------

"Apple has promised that existing Aperture"

Does this mean Yosemite won't support Aperture?

Aperture works fine in Yosemite here.

 

[subjonas]

Great... I JUST imported all my photos into iPhoto and uploaded and synced my entire library to Flickr. I suppose those painstaking weeks of uploading were a complete waste of time, unless Flickr sharing is built into the new Photos app and Apple is including synced albums in the migration path (very doubtful because it sounds like a technical nightmare, but even more likely because of Flickr's direct competition with iCloud Photo Library), or unless I plan on sticking to outdated software that will inevitably become incompatible with OS X. It will have to be the latter anyway, since I don't want to pay monthly to store my photos in iCloud Drive, when Flickr has 1TB of free storage.

 

[manu chao]

Also, while not exactly a feature I hope they have allowed for moving all the adjustment tools to e left hand side. As a left handed person who uses a Wacom tablet it's a complete pain in the arse when apps force tools on the right side of the screen. Even if photos gets all the aperture features and runs faster, such a change to workflow is something I couldn't live with. So far I'm still panning on using the current aperture release for as long as possible.

Or you could just flip your monitor 180º, the image can be rotated and identifying the sliders should be possible with some training.

 

[manu chao]

Does anyone know if it's straight forward to find every version in a library with edits applied, export that version as a TIFF or PSD, and reimport it? I'm realizing my love for non-destructive editing and cheap versions may have left my finals a bit vulnerable.

Finding images with adjustments is easy, exporting as well, the problem is importing them retaining the organisation structure (essentially you add the path for each album or project as a keyword to all images in it and after a re-import use that to re-create the folder structure). Since exporting and importing can retain the last two folder levels, only the part of the path above that needs to be added as a keyword (though, that only works for projects and folders containing the project, not for albums).

 

[manu chao]

The other thing I'm interested in is whether this is going to start a trend; for example, will we see a Movies app to combine Quicktime Player and iMovie? It may not be too far fetched as Quicktime Player has gained some pretty nifty editing tools (even if we've lost most output formats since Quicktime 7 and earlier), combining iMovie type editing and making an app centred around a library of movie content would be a great thing to have.

I don't this will happen, Quicktime to iMovie is like Preview to iPhoto. A relatively simple editor for quick manipulations not for any more complex editing tasks.

It's definitely something I want to see more of, as iTunes is a monster that currently tries to monopolise content in an unwieldy app that stores everything under ~/Music, which is just a mess. I know it doesn't really handle photos at the moment anyway, but I'm hoping Apple might be looking to split content out into more focused apps aimed toward one type of media each, combining library (in the correct folder), and editor, with background cloud sync if available.
Plus I just really want a properly redesigned Quicktime Player, as X has been very disappointing, plus I think the Quicktime name has become a bit of a relic; tons of new users don't even know what it is exactly. That and I want bloaTunes to be put down, while it still plays music decently, nearly every other feature just gets in the way, it's not very good for managing movies/TV shows, and the integration of the store is still pretty poor, focused apps is definitely the way to go, especially if they can rip the iOS syncing component out into a separate service.

There is a difference between your own content and third-party content, between creation and consumption. iMovie and Garageband are for creation, iTunes for consumption. Still iTunes covers audio and video but also apps and other synching tasks (email accounts, addresses, photos). I think audio and video consumption will stay together (podcasts can be both), but apps and other synching features could be moved to separate application. Though, synching is more and more pushed to the cloud (addresses, calendars, now photos).

iTunes might be ripe for a re-invention that is truly transparent in respect to the cloud (like the new Photos is meant to be). iTunes Match and to a lesser extent iTunes Radio are steps in that direction but with Beats something quite different could come up.

The problem with iTunes (and Quicktime) is that they are the only Windows apps that Apple has (keeping Filemaker aside). And that they need Windows apps to get content on iOS devices (and iPods) as well as other iOS setup and sync jobs (addresses, calendars). As the iPod has shown shutting Windows users completely out (ie, not offering any tools, ie, Windows applications, to get content and other data on iOS devices) would be wasting a lot of market share potential, not to speak of iTMS income and even the Apple TV.

----------

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.

This already possible with the current plugin infrastructure in Aperture (dating back to Aperture 2, Rob Galbraith reported on this back then) but for some reason the plugin makers didn't take that up (maybe the functionality was limited).

 

[manu chao]

Perhaps you misinterpreted what I meant because that isn't it. I am positive that tasks like import and exporting and editing all will be able to be done offline. What I'm suggesting is the possibility that the Photos app will have no ability to store full res photos offline within the app. Apple has already said that Photos key feature will be to sync editing across all devices.

If that is the case there is no way an iPad can store the GBs of high res pictures that a pro or hobbyist might have in Aperture files. So if Photos requires all photos one has in the app to be simultaneously displayed on all of one's devices there has to be a central server to store the high res original. The simplest solution (and Apple makes products with the least tech savvy person in mind) is to use iCloud, not one's Mac hard drive, as that server. Apple has, in fact, said, iCloud will be central to Photo's functionality, we just don't know how central.

So then the Photos app on each device will store a low res screen preview which is fully editable offline with the changes being sent to the iCloud master file when back online. The user could download each high res master picture to their Mac, sure, but they would have to have a different program to keep high res curated files offline.

Of course there is a central server which stores everything but the only reason why we need the server is because not everything fits on an iOS device but with a Mac that problem doesn't exist. And for speed purposes, each device will download what you are working on currently. Now, I see no advantages in the Mac deleting those images after a while. From synching point of view it doesn't make a difference if only some (original) images are stored locally or all are stored locally. If you can sync one set, you can equally well sync all images (and thumbnails of all images will likely already be synced to all devices).

You just have to look at the developer sessions on photo editing to know that editing takes places locally meaning the assets are local, the code is running locally, just the results (incl. the editing instructions) are synched. Once you have the infrastructure for local storage and editing, there is no reason to delete the originals locally if not for space reasons (ie, on iOS devices but not on the Mac).

It really feels as if things are binary in year mind, either they are stored on the server or they are stored locally. That they will be stored in both places somehow stretches your imagination.

 

[furi0usbee]

So I tried that Corel photos app.... horrible. No retina support, bad interface, the whole 9. I downloaded the Lightroom 5 trial... wow, what a clutter of an interface. Sure, you can turn stuff off, but boy, how ugly. All square corners everywhere, not beautiful to look at. I would not enjoy having to work in that environment with my photos. Depressing.

So I'm going to use Aperture as long as I can, then hopefully with plugins and some power user features, Photos will let me do what I've been used to doing in Aperture.

 

[0000757]

Feels like what I would've expected an "Aperture Express" if they had ever made one.

Then again, with every update, iMovie approaches Final Cut Pro in terms of usability and power, and the same goes to Garageband.

Of course those apps do major things that the iLife programs could never achieve, but the difference between iPhoto and Aperture was never that large.

I'm excited for Photos now.

 

[Aethelwulf]

There are two things here. One is a sorting, searchable library for photo file management. The other is a photo editing program. Apple seems to be moving away from the former and more toward the latter. Personally, I want something that will do layers, stacking and other things Apple seems to be moving away from. Sad, because I'd really like a good alternative to Adobe and their software rental program.

 

[Tech198]

ok, i was wrong.....

but the proof will be in the pudding....

Apple's known for good 'better than the average' in some cases. so maybe we'll get lucky.

 

[till213]

However, since I purchased it, it is no longer a standalone product

Simply not true: https://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop-lightroom.html

-> Lightroom 5 Standalone (bottom right)

instead, there's a monthly fee. It comes out to $120/year.

Additionally it is part of several "cloud packages".

----------

but they're never going to match what you can do in Photoshop.

Apparently you have never used any of Lightroom or Aperture: they're RAW developers plus some additional basic image processing (adjusting colours, removing dust, contrast enhancement, some basic brush techniques to locally adjust brightness etc.). Most importantly, they archive and index your photos.

Simply said: they change pixels, but do not move pixels around (nor do they support layers etc.).

They are never meant to be Photoshop! But the most important part: all editing is non-destructive.

 

[till213]

You mean that is why they released iCloud Drive where the user can organise their own files?

No, he does not mean that this is why Apple released iCloud Drive!

The way iPhoto/Aperture organise their photos has nothing to do with how Apple lets you access your files in the iCloud!

Typically iPhoto (cannot speak for Aperture, but since its the same Library format I guess it is true there as well) "hides" the photos from you "somewhere in the local file system", once imported. And it places them where it sees fit.

Well, as we all know the original and edited photos are not really "gone", they are still accessible in the "iPhoto Library" which is nothing more than a "Bundle" (or "Package"), so you can still access the files therein (by right-clicking etc.). But the way/structure your photos are stored therein is not meant to be changed (and you better not do it!).

This is in stark contrast how e.g. Lightroom organises the photos! The primary structure 1:1 reflects your file hierarchy! In fact, you can mess around in the file system (move/copy/add/delete photos) and then "sync" those changes with the Lightroom hierarchy.

Off course Lightroom also allows you do organise your photos with "(Smart) Collections" etc., similar to Aperture. But you always have full control about where your photos are stored and how they are organised! (And I prefer that).

But again, this has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Apple now (re-!)introduced their iCloud Disk (or whatever it is called now).

 

[downpour]

That "clutter" in Lr gives you access and control to fine-tune all settings. In Photos it will be a "More vintage, less vintage"-kind of slider control.

I think the screenshot shows it's not quite as simplified as that. There are almost as many options as Lightroom, with individual controls for highlights, blacks, neutral boost, definition, etc. The 'add' plugin button at the top could also help add anything that's missing.

I've tried to get into using Lightroom a number of times as I have it as part of my iCloud subscription. While i'm fully aware of all the powerful tools, I just can't get into using it for organising my photos. There is just too much interface and not enough focus on the photos themselves, which surely is the whole point of a photo management app. I just think Adobe could do a better job of hiding more of the interface when you aren't using it, which is most of the time.

I would like the default view to be fullscreen photos with no interface at all. A popup row of thumbnails could appear to help you navigate between them, which could expand into a fullscreen view of your library. If you click to edit a photo, then a sidebar could appear with the relevant controls. Every control should be carefully crafted to take up as little of the screen as possible and hide itself whenever it isn't being used. If something isn't completely necessary, cut it out!

That's the way to do a photo management app.

What I don't want is default top, bottom, left and right sidebars surrounds by unnecessary borders, padding, gradients, drop-shaddows, scrollbars, oversized fonts and countless icons. I want to see my photos, not the app.

99% of the time I'm not going to use all of the tools that Lightroom provides with my photos. The 1% when I do, I can just use Photoshop. So I'm willing to give up some of that editing power for a more enjoyable experience reviewing my photos. Apple's new offering might just be enough for me. Anything that doesn't have to rely on Adobe's terribly unreliable CC system is also a bonus.

 

[driftless]

Perhaps you misinterpreted what I meant because that isn't it. I am positive that tasks like import and exporting and editing all will be able to be done offline. What I'm suggesting is the possibility that the Photos app will have no ability to store full res photos offline within the app. Apple has already said that Photos key feature will be to sync editing across all devices.

If that is the case there is no way an iPad can store the GBs of high res pictures that a pro or hobbyist might have in Aperture files. So if Photos requires all photos one has in the app to be simultaneously displayed on all of one's devices there has to be a central server to store the high res original. The simplest solution (and Apple makes products with the least tech savvy person in mind) is to use iCloud, not one's Mac hard drive, as that server. Apple has, in fact, said, iCloud will be central to Photo's functionality, we just don't know how central.

So then the Photos app on each device will store a low res screen preview which is fully editable offline with the changes being sent to the iCloud master file when back online. The user could download each high res master picture to their Mac, sure, but they would have to have a different program to keep high res curated files offline.

----------

This, and other comments about being forced to store all of your photos in the cloud, strike me as a little bit like hyperbole. The concept is to sync the photos across devices. Think of Dropbox, you can store locally or online and have many files and folders on your various devices as you like. Or look at iCloud, I can work on the same document on my iPad or my Mac or I can store and work on a document on one of those devices and not store it in the cloud if I chose. Syncing across devices is going to be a wonderful tool for those of us who travel or are mobile photographers. I, for one, am looking forward to this feature.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

It really feels as if things are binary in year mind, either they are stored on the server or they are stored locally. That they will be stored in both places somehow stretches your imagination.

And with that I'll just say... Okaaaay. But, honestly, no. I can see 360 degrees around an object. You are the one that seems to be stuck on the idea that Apple's new workflow method will be like its old workflow method because that's the way it was done in the past. "No new paradigms!"

It's me OTOH suggesting it could be something very different than how current photo curation programs work -- I don't like it, but something in Apple's description of the new Photo app suggests it is very different, or else they could have just updated iPhoto with a new interface and kept the venerable name.

Anyway, we'll just have to agree to disagree that Photos could be a radical shift in how and where master photos are stored.

----------

This, and other comments about being forced to store all of your photos in the cloud, strike me as a little bit like hyperbole. The concept is to sync the photos across devices. Think of Dropbox, you can store locally or online and have many files and folders on your various devices as you like. Or look at iCloud, I can work on the same document on my iPad or my Mac or I can store and work on a document on one of those devices and not store it in the cloud if I chose. Syncing across devices is going to be a wonderful tool for those of us who travel or are mobile photographers. I, for one, am looking forward to this feature.

Understood. And with Dropbox, you can't store files in your Mac's Dropbox folder that are larger than your Dropbox storage. So effectively, it's the Dropbox cloud storage size that controls how much you can also store offline and also have it always available. Even if you have a 1TB HDD, if your Dropbox account is only 20GB then that is your limit. The size of each online and offline Dropbox folders are not independent of each other, they are exactly the same.

The unknown question regarding syncing across all devices is whether that is a mandatory feature; i.e., all Photos curated by the app have to always be available everywhere, or will their be a special "sync" folder where you can mark only certain pictures for syncing. The latter would lend itself to offline storage. The former would not unless you had a lot of iCloud storage. Apple is making up to 1TB iCloud storage available.

 

[haravikk]

I don't this will happen, Quicktime to iMovie is like Preview to iPhoto. A relatively simple editor for quick manipulations not for any more complex editing tasks.

I'm not really convinced of the comparison there; iPhoto is the basic editor compared to Aperture, but they're now being rolled together into what looks like a photo library manager, with both simple and advanced editing tools.

So the tools in Quicktime Player in that regard are the simple tools, while iMovie's are more advanced (albeit including composition as well, but then Quicktime can copy/paste movie segments too). But my point also is that Quicktime Player lacks the concept of a media library, which means it's in a kind of funny position where for many users it doesn't really do anything anymore, as it's generally better to move your movies into iTunes if you can since it organises them into a media library. But really the opposite would be better; with that media library moving out into its own, movie centric app. Okay, maybe combining iMovie could be a step too far, but I could absolutely see Quicktime Player being replaced with a Movies app aimed at organising your movie and TV show library, with some simple editing tools for tweaking things like home movies.