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

[Stormbringer]

I really, really hope this is as powerful as Aperture, hopefully with faster processing too. Having used Lightroom 3 and 4 alongside Aperture, I strongly prefer the latter - it gives me easier and faster the results I want, and even better than in Lightroom. Yes, Lightroom has some additional strong points, but they are not as important as the overall workflow which I like in Aperture.

Anyway, this is the first time that I really care about any Apple hardware/software announcement for the 8 years I'm using a Mac. Please give us the ability to have the brushes, curves, and other adjustments in a new, sleeker, and faster app!

 

[Chupa Chupa]

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'm just going off the new stories and bits that Apple has given us thus far. From Apple's own description it's going to be tightly integrated into iCloud unlike any other Apple OS X program to-date. I can't show you any Apple OS X program that doesn't offer offline storage but as they say "past performance doesn't indicate future results."

 

[Joe HS]

My iOS 7/8 maps my photos. You have to back up to the Collections part where it breaks it out by the "location" where the photos were taken and tap on that location.

That's not even remotely similar to the old behaviour. I want every location (with increasing accuracy as you zoom in) to have a pin/stack – and be able to pan around and track photo taking habits.

 

[Small White Car]

We had Levels in iPhoto?

I never mentioned Levels. Please re-read what I quoted and what I commented to.

Well, you were right. They're in there. Go to the EDIT mode and click the ADJUST pane. iPhoto wasn't perfect but it's pretty damn powerful for what it is.

Here's another fun one: There are levels in Apple's Preview app too! Option-Command-C

 

[lincolntran]

Glad to at least hear more official info from Apple. All the negative speculation makes me sad. Can't wait for a beta version.

Don't let uninformed opinionated commenters on here make you sad. They complain about everything, mostly things they haven't even seen yet.

 

[PocketSand11]

Plugins, wow. That's a pleasant surprise. Maybe a "make the entire thing like Aperture" plugin will arise? As a consumer iPhoto user, I'm looking forward to this, but I feel bad for the pros.

The real question is: Will it run on Mountain Lion?

 

[MentalFloss]

Because the main talking point about the new Photos app so far is "your photos are in the cloud".

That's what they said before when Photo Stream came along, and you still have all your photos in the Photo Stream also stored locally.

How would it work anyway to force people to use iCloud? If I recall correctly, it will be limited to 5GB storage. Even most non-pros nowadays have bigger libraries than that. So if they want to force you to use iCloud, they'd have to force you to buy a storage plan. Even Apple does not play that dirty.

I have been waiting for an "Aperture for iOS" for a long time, because I was hoping for an iCloud sync between my iPad, iPhone and my Mac. Now Apple is kinda sorta giving me what I hope for - assuming that Photos is not going to be as stripped down as some people here think they "know".

 

[glenthompson]

I would imagine that with the upset last week's 'announcement' caused, that by the time this is in the wild any meaningful Aperture migration will be irrelevant to most users who will have already moved everything to Capture One Pro or Lightroom.

I mean, who's (out of Current Aperture users) really going to wait until next year to see if photos might just be OK?

I am. Aperture does everything I need right now. It will work in Yosemite. What reason do I have to migrate to another application unless it offers something I need or want. Just because it's not supported doesn't mean it's dead. Moving to another vendor's platform means a huge learning curve. That's going to happen whether I do it now or in two years. Since I don't need to do it now, why invest the time? I would feel pretty bad if I moved off Aperture right now and it turns out Photos does everything I need quite well.

We have people here still running Leopard on G5 machines. Do they have an immediate need to upgrade? Apparently not.

 

[wrrzzelbbrrmmff]

The sole purpose of Apple's apps

Apple's apps (like iWork, iLife, and the new Photos app) have a sole purpose: to increase the customer loyalty to Apple, and to decrease the possibility of a customer to switch (back) to Windows or Linux. One should therefore choose apps that run on both Windows and Mac: Adobe Lightroom, LibreOffice, Firefox, Thunderbird, ... run on both OS.

 

[bmelson0412]

Apple has lost my complete respect. Aperture is professional grade, where you use brushes and can use an adjustment page. With "Photos" all you to is click and drag, there will be nothing from Aperture. This **** is so unprofessional that I myself will get ahold of Tim Cook and see how they plan to keep professional photographers to keep buying anything from Apple now.

 

[ThisIsNotMe]

I mean, who's (out of Current Aperture users) really going to wait until next year to see if photos might just be OK?

Whats the issue with continuing to use Aperture?

 

[r.harris1]

Apple's apps (like iWork, iLife, and the new Photos app) have a sole purpose: to increase the customer loyalty to Apple, and to decrease the possibility of a customer to switch (back) to Windows or Linux. One should therefore choose apps that run on both Windows and Mac: Adobe Lightroom, LibreOffice, Firefox, Thunderbird, ... run on both OS.

One should choose the program that one prefers and that works the best for one's purposes in one's chosen environment, I would think.

 

[LucasLand]

In-App purchases

Any chance apple will start having in-app purchases available in some new desktop apps? That would enable pro users to add the features they want

 

[Rogifan]

Who is the DRI for apps at Apple? Federighi? Cue? Schiller? Apple used to have an SVP of applications (Sima Tammadon). Maybe they need a senior executive just overseeing applications. And maybe then they can decouple app updates from OS updates so we get more frequent updates to core apps like mail, calendar, maps etc.

 

[glenthompson]

I have been waiting for an "Aperture for iOS" for a long time, because I was hoping for an iCloud sync between my iPad, iPhone and my Mac. Now Apple is kinda sorta giving me what I hope for - assuming that Photos is not going to be as stripped down as some people here think they "know".

Check out the IOS Photos framework video from the WWDC. Gives a good idea of the capabilities that will be in the Photos for IOS based on what they're showing in the framework. Why would they show how to perform various photo editing tasks in an application if they weren't already doing that?

 

[MentalFloss]

Apple's apps (like iWork, iLife, and the new Photos app) have a sole purpose: to increase the customer loyalty to Apple, and to decrease the possibility of a customer to switch (back) to Windows or Linux. One should therefore choose apps that run on both Windows and Mac: Adobe Lightroom, LibreOffice, Firefox, Thunderbird, ... run on both OS.

If I decorate my house to look like a cave on the off chance that I might have to move to a cave one day, then why should I live in a house in the first place?

In the unlikely event that Apple goes bankrupt or Windows or Linux suddenly become usable operating systems, I think most people will not have such a huge problem with learning to use Lightroom instead of Photos and with importing their photo library or with learning to use another web browser. Yes, Apple tries to lock people into their eco system by providing easy-to-use free software as a part of OS X. I don't see that as a reason though why I should use difficult-to-use paid or free software just to avoid that lock-in. I can always go back to that if I feel like it.

And by the way, where can you get that Adobe Lightroom version of Linux?

 

[pubwvj]

What would make it interesting is if it was a full featured replacement for both Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator with the ability to read and write all past file formats for those. Work flow should be similar. Then I would buy. I'm not interested in abandoning all my work every time companies 'update' software.

 

[glenthompson]

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.

My wife hated iPhoto but loves Aperture. Go figure. Just something about the UI or the workflow was just different enough to fit her way of thinking.

 

[mic j]

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.

You're right about it being a "talking point". That doesn't in any way mean it won't support off-line storage. As a "talking point" you are going to highlight the new/novel features of the application, not something like "And you can store your photo's on your local hard drive!!!!".

Lot's of people need to take a chill pill and actually see what it's all about and how it integrates with the OS (like RAW) and how it can be customized with 3rd party apps make it the application you use (whatever your professional/non-professional level) rather than some bloated application filled with lots of neat stuff but that adds useless complexity.

 

[randyj]

Happy to take the Yosemite update for Aperture, it gives me at least another 18 months before I have to decide what I'll do.


So far, Aperture has met most, if not all, of my photo needs.

Exactly! I had a play with Lightroom again yesterday. I just can't switch, I hate it.
I have played with Lightroom, every now and then since the original Beta, and yes it is better now, but not for me!

 

[John.B]

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

 

[randyj]

Why should it be better than Aperture? There's no way it will be and it's not supposed to be. It's a replacement for iPhoto, not a replacement for Aperture. They're killing Aperture and will no longer have a prosumer Photo app.

Either that or they are bringing prosumer features to the masses!
(Well my hope anyway)

----------

I would imagine that with the upset last week's 'announcement' caused, that by the time this is in the wild any meaningful Aperture migration will be irrelevant to most users who will have already moved everything to Capture One Pro or Lightroom.

I mean, who's (out of Current Aperture users) really going to wait until next year to see if photos might just be OK? Even after this meaningful back peddling which though inevitable in the wake of the bluntness of announcing Aperture's death, is still a pathetic excuse for crucial information to people who rely on Aperture.

Personally I switched to C1Pro and suggest you do the same, especially if you don't like Lightroom.

As much as I'd like to think that Apple's next Photos app is going to be a professional grade tool, I think they've made it obvious that a professional workstation is not where Apple's future's at.

I'm not going to hang around noodling in Aperture's old architecture while there are better, more competitive alternatives, right now, today.

I can't think of one good reason for any pro photographer who used Aperture to remain faithfully loyal to these apps while Apple remorselessly turns the screw.

OSX is wicked, and So are Macs from the top down, but don't confuse Apple's expertise in computing with their lack of specialist knowledge in this situation. The pro market is not a big enough market for them, so why wouldn't they leave it to someone else?

----------



Adobe is not the only alternative.

I am sticking with Aperture for now! I know the interface back to front and there is nothing quite the same.
Lightroom and capsure one both have to maintain PC versions so it holds them back on things like making the App have hardware acceleration built solely for Mac.

 

[John.B]

Here's a question,

If you have some images on your Mac, can you add/import them to Photos?

If you can, do they sync across?

If so, I hope it works better than iTunes Match...

 

[kwikdeth]

"plans for professional-grade features such as image search,"

you hear that? that's the sound of thousands of "professionals" switching to a product that doesnt insult their intelligence.

 

[MacHiavelli]

Photos is, in part, designed to encourage people to buy storage with Apple.

It could well be that Yosemite turns out to be an expensive 'free' upgrade for an awful lot of people.