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
Nobody knows just yet, but based on the announcement and the features shown in the screenshot, it looks like an enhanced iPhoto. Nowhere near Aperture functionality. Also, it would not make sense to combine Pro and casual user features in one application. Especially for Apple, who wants a simple as possible approach to everything, even for Pros. A combination is not simple.
Photos is just pulled from iOS devices. because that's where so many learn about Apple computing.
DOH! just re-read your post...haha
Who isn't? Why this kind of panic move now?
If you like Aperture right now, then there's no reason to switch, because it's going to be updated for at least one more OS X version, which means it has at least 1 1/2 years of life left, and it's not going to be a worse application in a week than it was a week ago. If it turns out later that Photos sucks and that Aperture will not be updated for another OS X version, then it's still possible to switch. But if you don't like Aperture right now, then don't act like you're switching because Apple is discontinuing the support. Then you're simply overdue for a switch.
Either way, I don't see any reason why anyone needs to panic now and move out of Aperture as if Apple is going to remotely delete it from their hard drive the day Photos is released.
I don't see any back-peddling here. Apple is giving out more information on Photos now. They are not adding anything that was previously not intended to be there.
And if you want crucial information for people who rely on Aperture, here it is: Aperture will still work in a year from now. If you buy a new camera in the meantime, Aperture will still benefit from the RAW updates in OS X. Whatever work you are doing with Aperture now, you can still do with Aperture in a year.
Really, I hope people are not silly enough to panic like this and throw quite a large amount of money into an application on the assumption that Photos is going to suck, when Apple will end up releasing a free application that may actually do what they need just as well.
Even if I were going to switch, now is the worst of moments, because Adobe has already announced that they are going to make Lightroom more likeable for current Aperture users. Who knows what they will add to Lightroom within the next 12 months. Does Capture One Pro even offer an Aperture library import option by now? Last time I checked it didn't. Perhaps it will do so in a year, which would make a switch to CP1Pro much easier. Even if I were 100% sure that I will not continue using Apple solutions, I would wait and see what the market looks like in a year. Panic is rarely a good advisor when it comes to purchasing something.
Can you tell me any rational reason why it would not have offline storage? Can you show me any Apple application that does not offer offline storage?
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."
So you've used it?
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
- Because they had to announce the iOS compagnion when releasing the iOS 8 beta.
- They want third-party developers to start thinking about writing add-ons or simply integrating their new photo architecture
Because the main talking point about the new Photos app so far is "your photos are in the cloud".
So it's understandable that we are concerned.
But then half of the internet has been clamouring for years for Apple to give indications for the future of Aperture.
Exactly. I have no doubt you will be able to save them locally on a Mac, I just want to be sure that my photos aren't forced to be uploaded on iOS.
If they keep iPads updated for reading RAW.
There is no reason to doubt they will keep OSX ready for RAW.
Really? Then why does it work so well with the current Aperture version? My wife is absolutely a non-techie, but she uses Aperture on my Mac, and she doesn't have any problems with it, because on the surface, it's not all that different from iPhoto already now. She has a list of projects/albums on the left side, the split view on the right side, and under each photo, there are very few buttons with the most basic photo manipulation tools (rotating, cropping, red eye removal) that are interesting to non-pro users. Importing pictures is as simple as sticking an SD card in the SD card slot and clicking "Ok". The professional tools and options don't appear unless you actually click on them. They don't jump in your face all the time, and I have never heard a "There are too many buttons here!" complaint that I hear for example when she sees Photoshop.
The smartest thing Apple can do is to take Aperture, add a new user interface to it, add iCloud support and then upgrade it with some new features (e.g. the "similar image search" found in iPhoto for iPad), and then release this under the name "Photos" and be done with it. Who knows, they might just do that.
I wonder what will happen to iPhoto for iOS. Perhaps apple will do the same thing, and add iPhoto's slightly more advanced functionality into the stock photos app.
Seems like Apple prefers outsourcing several parts of their pro app software development to third-party developers, so that they can continue to appease their prosumers and market prosumer functions to consumers who don't know the difference. This saves apple the time, resources, and expenses of competing with Adobe for a minority of their user base.
From their perspective, this is a very good thing.
This is great for a computer company, consumers, and wannabe professionals, but has a major financial impact on the future of those industries and the very livelihoods of real professionals, who rely on expensive training and tools to differentiate their knowledge and skillsets from non-professionals, who think clicking pretty buttons will have the same desired effect in the end product.
Most don't know the differences between applying a template effect and watching what really happens to level properties on high-end, hardware-based, industry standard monitors and scopes. What looks pretty to a consumer could be disastrous and expensive to fix for a professional, and that consumer would never know the difference.
This approach, then, just fills and shifts industries with cheap-minded producers who prioritize lower costs over higher quality, and in the end, the quality of those creative works suffer.
There is a big difference between pushing UI buttons around the screen and understanding the backend workflow processes needed to produce the quality desired. When Apple hides, simplifies, and automates those things, they change the very foundations of how "great" content is created, and what the future of those limited choices will become.
If professional industries dissolve into consumer-focused tools, then everybody loses in the end, because we will all be forced to accept lower quality content.
Or, at least that is one perspective.
Last edited:
Wow, holy cow. Thanks for the epiphany. It makes sense now.
That robust section of the app store I was talking about before? Apple wants it bad and know they need to kill Aperture to make it happen.
Same reason the iPhone camera app never does all that much. Would we have Camera+ if the built-in app just did everything? Not a chance.
Same thing here. Apple wants the Mac to come with dozens of 3rd party choices and they know it'll never get off the ground if there's a big ol' Apple version at the top of the app store. (These choices may come in the way of stand-alone apps or 'Photos' plug ins. Don't think it matters to Apple either way.)
Your comment really clarified this for me.
I think you're letting history get in your way. Yes, in the past you "learned photoshop."
But what if, instead of learning specific software, future pros learn specific tools?
Think about it: Do you buy a camera kit in a box? No. You pick a body, lenses, and lights based on your needs. You build your shooting kit based on what you need. Whether you buy a Canon or a Nikon lens you know that what YOU need is a 50 mm prime, let's say.
Well what if photo editing goes the same way? You know, as a pro, that you need a histogram and level controls. You know you need a sharpening brush. You know you need a lens perspective correction tool. So you buy the things you need and build your post-production "kit" in the exact same way you built your camera kit.
Very, very different. And, worth pointing out, not at ALL what they're doing with Final Cut X. So who knows. It could be amazing or it might not even be Apple's plan at all. Perhaps we're all making crap up that will never come to be.
Fun to think about, though.
Last edited:
Calm down. Exporting from iPhoto is easy. A quick google search will help you out. Also, Apple will import your existing library into Photos. No. Big. Deal.
Except that you do a "Final Cut" on a video and Logic is a play on "audiological." So either of the names you suggest don't really make sense. Photos does makes sense because that's what the app is, it's your photos.