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

[arkmannj]

3rd party extensibility

There is they key, helping provide features that Apple can't/wont have added to Photos app out of the gates and could help add many pro features back into photos.

Heck maybe Apple is unifying iPhoto/ Aperature in to Photos as a free app then offer plugins to professionals. I would much prefer this than two separate applications anyways.

Think of it like this, Apple no longer offers Mac os x server, you just get Mac os x then but an extension of sorts (not exactly the same but same concept)

 

[TMRJIJ]

Don't know for sure

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.

But they said there will be third-party extensibility, probably allowing some of the features that Aperture had to be added in Photos.

 

[captain kaos]

That is good news. It better to better than Aperture.

And you base this on?........

 

[autrefois]

Who said the new App won't have it?

Who said it will?

 

[captain kaos]

Will the editing tools still be non destructive? Will they charge for this new app, because I've already paid for Aperture, so now i'll have to buy something again? Is apple going the way of releasing a basic app and then the user has to purchase the 3rd party plug ins to make it do the same job as Aperture, as again, im having to fork out cash to get the same level of app that I've already paid for.

Poor move Apple. But you know, as long as you keep the ipad/iphone generation happy every year then thats all that counts, right?!

----------

3rd party extensibility

There is they key, helping provide features that Apple can't/wont have added to Photos app out of the gates and could help add many pro features back into photos.

Heck maybe Apple is unifying iPhoto/ Aperature in to Photos as a free app then offer plugins to professionals. I would much prefer this than two separate applications anyways.

Think of it like this, Apple no longer offers Mac os x server, you just get Mac os x then but an extension of sorts (not exactly the same but same concept)

I could be wrong but iphoto is destructive when adding effects. That the main (pro) part that Aperture covers. They go and merge these two together it doesn't matter what fancy adjustments you can do if they're baked into the image its not usable for pros.

 

[viizi]

Will the editing tools still be non destructive? Will they charge for this new app, because I've already paid for Aperture, so now i'll have to buy something again? Is apple going the way of releasing a basic app and then the user has to purchase the 3rd party plug ins to make it do the same job as Aperture, as again, im having to fork out cash to get the same level of app that I've already paid for.

Poor move Apple. But you know, as long as you keep the ipad/iphone generation happy every year then thats all that counts, right?!

----------



I could be wrong but iphoto is destructive when adding effects. That the main (pro) part that Aperture covers. They go and merge these two together it doesn't matter what fancy adjustments you can do if they're baked into the image its not usable for pros.

It's alright. You will still be able to use Aperture that you own and have installed already. It wont self destruct.

 

[NY Guitarist]

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.

I agree about not switching if you like Aperture and it fits your need right now. But Apple said they are ceasing any further development of Aperture so I disagree that there will any new versions. There may be a point release to be Yosemite compatible, but I wouldn't expect much beyond that.

 

[SolarShane]

PixelMator could always write a "Open In PixelMator" plugin. PM is becoming more and more powerful with every release; will be a PS replacement soon enough. Case closed.

 

[John.B]

iPhoto can edit RAW images as well.... but with much less abilities/power. Hopefully when they are saying that Photos has increased editing abilities it means that they are brining over a lot of the tools from Aperture.

You technically don't "edit" a RAW image, you process it.

Which is the main reason I expect RAW support to be the first casualty with the new Photos app. Far too much work to have to update app support for every new sensor in every new camera model, especially when no Apple camera even provides RAW output.

It was one thing when they had to support RAW anyway, for Aperture, but now that they've exited the professional photography business, removing RAW support will just be a cost savings that will reduce application complexity.

That said, I will miss the days when OS X was a platform for creatives.

 

[MrGIS]

[url=http://cdn.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogodarkd.png]Image[/url]


Last week, Apple announced that the company would be discontinuing their Aperture photo management software to focus development on the new Photos app that was introduced at WWDC. Details on Apple's new Photos app, however, remains scarce, leaving Aperture users with a lot of uncertainty.

Ars Technica was able to get additional information from an Apple representative, who indicated that certain professional-grade features would be coming to the new Photos app:Some of these editing features are already depicted in the screenshot that Apple released of Photos at the time of the announcement:

[url=http://cdn.macrumors.com/article-new/2014/07/newphotos-800x449.jpg]Image​

​

Click for Full Size Screenshot[/url]​

The screenshot shows an adjustments panel with settings for Light (Exposure, Highlights, Shadows, Brightness, Contrast, Blacks), Color (Saturation, Contrast, Cast), Black & White (Hue Strength, Neutral Boost, Photo Tone, Grain), Definition, Vignette, White Balance, and Levels.

Apple has promised that existing Aperture users will be able to import their libraries into the new OS X Photos app. Photos is expected to be released early next year.

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

It looks and sounds a lot like Aperture to me.. I shake my head at many of the comments since last Friday. So many people reacting like they have been left with software that does not work at all. Its become clear to me that Photos will have most if not all of what Aperture offers, and probably a great deal more. So if you like Apple's approach to photography, stay the course. Continue to use Aperture until the release of Photos, maybe even wait for the first update. People, keep shooting and stop worrying..

 

[jwdsail]

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 can't think of any reason a "Pro" would switch from something that works perfectly well, out of hysteria, rather than take a wait and see approach. Aperture isn't going to just up and stop working Jan 1 2015... I have it running right now, and it isn't any less useful than before this unfortunate announcement..

I've already purchased an extra Mac, installed Aperture on it, and mothballed it... I intend to stick w/ Aperture at least until my current Aperture Mac dies, if not longer... I'm glad you've found an alternative you like, but I've tried just about everything, and can't stand them. I'll ride Aperture until the wheels fall off. Maybe in 3-5 years, Apple or a 3rd party will offer something I think is worth switching to, perhaps even a Photos extension/Plug-in? Right now, shrug, I'd rather cut off my left... arm... than switch to something that makes my work more difficult.

 

[r.harris1]

You technically don't "edit" a RAW image, you process it.

Which is the main reason I expect RAW support to be the first casualty with the new Photos app. Far too much work to have to update app support for every new sensor in every new camera model, especially when no Apple camera even provides RAW output.

It was one thing when they had to support RAW anyway, for Aperture, but now that they've exited the professional photography business, removing RAW support will just be a cost savings that will reduce application complexity.

That said, I will miss the days when OS X was a platform for creatives.

RAW support was more front and center in WWDC than I've seen in some time specific to Yosemite, with focus on noise, lens correction, dual GPUs. There's no indication that it will be a casualty.

 

[wheelhot]

Well yeah, if Apple create a photography app store for the Photos app which allow 3rd party plugins to edit non-destructively your photos, then it'll be gold. Apple doesn't have to "maintain" features that pros will use and pros will get software developers whom actually cares for the pro needs.

I'm now trying out CaptureOne and going to try out Lightroom, I'll probably wait till Photos is out before I decide to stick or switch.

It's a pity Apple axed Aperture, I just love how it works and the UI is fantastic! I tried CaptureOne, while it's really powerful and updated to the latest tech (it uses OpenCL), the UI is meh and doesn't really inspire me to play around. Though maybe I'll have to customize the workspace quite a lot to get what I like.

I'm giving Lightroom a 2nd shot, I tried it last time and I don't like how it works, so we'll see again. The biggest advantage LR has over C1 is extensive 3rd party support, that's the only reason why I'm giving it a shot and as I said, if Apple created a platform for 3rd party developers to extend Photos so it's able to cater for the professional photographer market, it'll be gold.

 

[todd2000]

So how does this work with existing iPhoto libraries? I assume you can import your iPhoto library into Photos, but then what? Does it automatically upload your entire library, which in my case it 13GB, to iCloud? If so does that then automatically sync to my iPhone?

 

[Chupa Chupa]

Past performance often indicates future results, not always but mostly. And common sense can also indicate future results.... There are zero reasons why a Mac application would not be able to store everything locally. What would be gained? As long as local storage is cheaper than cloud storage what is the incentive for anybody to not also have a local copy?

I read your two sentences and immediately recalled a few things Apple did in the past few years that caught people flatfooted like

delivering OS X by download only, not on hard media as was always done prior;
not charging for OS X upgrades as every other major upgrade was;
sealing batteries rather than giving users a way to swap out device the battery themselves;
launching iPads and iPhones in the fall rather than the previous schedule of iPads; in early spring and iPhones in late spring/early summer;
or eliminating built-in optical drives.

You see past performance often indicates future results until one day it does not. The key word in your sentence above is often and often is not a synonym for always.

It's not out of the realm of possibility that Photos will be an iCloud dependent program. We just don't know. Why would Apple do that? To lock consumers in to iCloud and get them to pay for larger amounts of storage. To once again change the way consumers view their computers & sell "piece of mind" that they never have to worry about losing pictures to a crashed hard drive plus "always available" on all of your devices.

At WWDC it announced that iCloud accounts would be sold up to 1TB. Why would anyone need that much iCloud space as its currently configured? Apple is planning something that will give people a reason, we just don't know what it is. You could be right but I'm just expressing my thought that if the new program is iCloud only I have no interest. Apple does a lot of things that make sense to Apple and no one else. I mean who expected Apple to transfer the iMovie interface to it's pro level Final Cut Pro program?

 

[PocketSand11]

No. Photos will be using the new Core Image RAW support, and will support extensions/plugins. Both of those features (and probably others used by Photos) will only exist in Yosemite, therefore Photos will require Yosemite.

All Macs which can run Mountain Lion are able to upgrade to Mavericks, and rumours say they will all be able to upgrade to Yosemite. What is keeping you on Mountain Lion which you expect will still be an issue more than six months from now?

Darn, that's unfortunate. No way to install the new RAW support on Mountain Lion, I'm assuming.

Mavericks was slower than Mountain Lion on every Mac I tried, sometimes insanely slower, despite most of its features being about performance optimization. The "RAM doubler" was more of a RAM halver. 6GB of RAM apparently wasn't enough for it. It also randomly logged me out forcibly about once a week and had some other bugs like Xcode refusing to update. The removal of color labels didn't help either (I don't want to use tags). If this isn't fixed in Yosemite, I'm not going to update. Lastly, I would rather not deal with updating when my current system works fine. Third-party software becomes incompatible, and then I have problems to fix.

One of the rare things I like about Microsoft: They support their old OSs. Remember how leaving XP to die after 13 years was a big deal? Apple abandons any OS that is more than a year old now.

 

[rexone]

This will be interesting.
I've said for ages that Apple needs an 'iPhoto Pro' app & this looks like it.
I haven't updated from iPhoto '09 as I found, after trialling it, that the latest incarnations of iPhoto just removed too many features, they are too dumbed-down.
I tried Aperture but as a casual user I found the learning curve too steep, it lacked any intuitive aspects and it just seemed designed to look and act 'pro' rather than be user-friendly.
Here's hoping 'Photos' falls somewhere in the middle.

 

[xmichaelp]

The app looks gorgeous. I hope Logic and iMovie/FCP X get a similar UI makeover with all the same functionality.

 

[CmdrLaForge]

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.

I am on the same page. Maybe I will use Yosemite for more then just a year.

 

[smulji]

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."

When you put it that way, that does sound pretty cool & exciting. I wonder if Apple shouldn't just take the same approach with Audio & Video. Sounds like the smart way to do it.

 

[that1guyy]

Looking at the screenshot, it looks very simple and consumerish. But let's wait and see.

 

[TheralSadurns]

Honestly... nobody but yourself messed up your iPhoto library. You probably didn't care on import what was going on. You had Events auto-split by date, and never assigned any meaningful names. Had you approached the whole organizing thing on import rather than after the fact... you would not face a problem. iPhoto and Aperture make it easy enough to preview your images before you import them, so you can select to import ONLY the pictures of your last vacation and put them in an event... rather than the 2 years worth of photos all stuck on your SD card...

I have loyally stuck with iPhoto over years, and as a consquence, I have GIGS worth of photos stored in a messy complicated way that I cannot even begin to understand.

Will this new Photo app unmess the mess iPhoto made and restore all my pictures to some rational system that a non techie can easily grasp?

Or am I, like so many other Mac loyalists, going to get stuck with having my photos buried within cryptically named photos in a way that I just cannot understand, much less use practically?

Apple please clean up my photo storage mess after you ditch iPhoto, thank you!

 

[Burger Thing]

This App better be good. I just checked out Lightroom again (this time V5.5) and I just don't like the library management, workflow and UI. Maybe it just needs time to get used to it but I have better things to do.

So I will cling onto Aperture for now and will see how it goes.

 

[smoking monkey]

What about the cloud issue? Are they going to mandate storing your entire library in the cloud?

Due to privacy issues and the sheer size of my library, I can't do that. I admit that I would enjoy being able to have PART of my library in the cloud; albums of final good photos from trips, five-star photos, etc... but being required to upload my entire 1TB+ library to the cloud would be completely unfeasible.

I will relax quite a bit once I have a good answer on this!

I will bet my house it will be just like pages - cloud or local. There is no way they can store everybody's photos in the cloud at this point in time. That's just way too much info. Plus as you say, it's a privacy nightmare! Plus it would mean you'd have to be connected to see your photos. Nah... it's definitely not cloud only.

 

[iMat77]

?

Does this "Photo" thingy have:
- Vault (i.e. dedicated backup)
- ability to store pictures in different places and have them as a reference in the library
- stacks
- geotagging of pictures taken with dslr
- face recognition (still not available in lightroom afaik)

but then again...

add some features like

- lens correction

If "plugin" means "pseudo-artistic-******-vintage-filters-collections" then Apple might lose me on this one.

And on their whole OS if this goes on much longer.