chaosbunny
macrumors 68020
Interesting. I never even set up iCloud since I don't need or want it. If Photos requires it I might as well delete Photos from my Mac.
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
Interesting. I never even set up iCloud since I don't need or want it. If Photos requires it I might as well delete Photos from my Mac.
Dorv
macrumors 6502
I'm not planning on moving away from Aperture in the next year, to Photos or to Lightroom. Just because Apple has handled this poorly from a PR perspective doesn't change my workflow.
To be honest, despite all of the handwringing I expect that Aperture will work in OSX for at least one iteration after Yosemite, if not more -- though I think by the end of 2015 I'll be moving to one platform or the other. Capture 1 isn't an option for me, as it doesn't support plug-ins.
I think he means "shoddy work" at announcing the end of Aperture, but offering no info on Photos, thus causing all this grief, speculation, and cursing 6+ months before Photos' release.
I think a lot of people don't understand stand why telling us months in advance that Aperture development is finished is a bad thing for Pros.
All of the third party plugins will stop development. This happens to be a big deal. That means Aperture, Third Party, and future projects stop development. We have to wait until Photos comes out in development.
It would have been better if they would have explained Photos with some detail and could have NIK, Imagenomic, etc. stating they were going to support Photos. Just a little something to make us feel a little better. I feel that would have avoided full blown panic.
Unfortunately, when you are Apple and mention Adobe in the context of help, we can gather our own answer to Photos end game and start to panic.
All of the third party plugins will stop development. This happens to be a big deal. That means Aperture, Third Party, and future projects stop development. We have to wait until Photos comes out in development.
It would have been better if they would have explained Photos with some detail and could have NIK, Imagenomic, etc. stating they were going to support Photos. Just a little something to make us feel a little better. I feel that would have avoided full blown panic.
Unfortunately, when you are Apple and mention Adobe in the context of help, we can gather our own answer to Photos end game and start to panic.
You forgot to add that therefore you will move your Aperture library to Lightroom immediately.
That's not the case. It's a replacement for both, at least according to the only ones that know Apple.
theFly
macrumors member
Per 3: Duplication is 50% faster then copy and paste. Seriously, it's the same functionality just one keystroke faster. Try it. Click on a page, hit Command-D, bam! It's amazing, it's like I want to hit two keystrokes, but the damn program won't let me, it knows that I want to paste!
But, let's take a step back and see how the much vaulted Microsoft Word does it. Took me a few moments to actually find the page thumbnail view...and...no copy and paste. No duplication. No easy drag/drop page organization.
And what about copy and pasting between different documents?
Not as easy since you have to create blank pages, then select what you want, etc...duplicate of course has a purpose, but so does copy and paste. They are different commands for different purposes.
Stop defending Apple when they make poor decisions. This is a repeated pattern with their pro apps.
When the iWork redesign was relaunched, duplicate wasn't even there which was PATHETIC. The app is called PAGES and you couldn't even move pages around.
IOS devices and iCloud are Apples lowest common denominator to which all of its apps need to correspond with, Photos included.
It is the holy grail that leads to selling its user base an array of hardware: a desktop, a laptop, an iPad, an iPod, an iPhone, an iWatch, and whatever else comes down the pike, all of it completely synchronized.
It is the holy grail that leads to selling its user base an array of hardware: a desktop, a laptop, an iPad, an iPod, an iPhone, an iWatch, and whatever else comes down the pike, all of it completely synchronized.
No, you're wrong. Aperture and iPhoto both use the exact same library format. You can switch between the two seamlessly. That wouldn't be the case if the edits where baked in.
AllergyDoc
macrumors 68020
Or maybe not:
https://developer.apple.com/library...entEditingInputWithOptions:completionHandler:
Yes indeed, it seems like you can "request" an "Asset" to be edited and "commit" your changes. You'll initiate an "editing session" ("block") by calling above function.
From the (preliminary) docs:
"To complete the edit, create a PHContentEditingOutput object from the editing input to provide the edited asset data. Then, commit the edit by posting a change block to the shared PHPhotoLibrary object. In the block, create a PHAssetChangeRequest object and set its contentEditingOutput property to the editing output you created. "
However the docs do not talk about "recording separate edit steps" (which is what Aperture/Lightroom are doing), but instead it appears that one has to "commit" the final result ("change block") back to the photo library.
So when you chain several plugins, it looks like you end up with different "image versions" like
Original.jpg -> plugin1 -> edited1.jpg -> plugin2 -> edited2.jpg
(Off course I only made this up after skimming through the docs for about 5 minutes).
Instead of
Original.jpg -> plugin1 -> "Invert Pixels" -> plugin2 -> "Convert to greyscale"
If you think about it, the first approach is the only sensible approach, since if you need to sync your photo library to another which does not have the plugin(s) installed (simply because the plugin might be available for OS X, but not for iOS or the other way around), the other library would not be able to "render" the final image, because it would not know how to e.g. "invert the pixels"!
By storing "change blocks" however the other library would at least be able to "display" the result of the plugin (but not edit it further).
Maybe I am getting it wrong, maybe there is (will be?) a way to "record work steps" - or maybe iOS / OS X will provide a fixed set of "basic image processing operations" (like "inverting pixels" etc.) and plugins are only allowed to use those (and by combining them create new "effects")?
Interesting problem 🙂
theFly
macrumors member
First, Pages is not a pro app and it does more in terms of duplicate and page ordering then Microsoft Word does, which is a pro app and costs real money.
Second, iWork was a set of legacy applications which needed to be rebuilt from the ground up to support the new world where people work seamlessly between Computers and mobile devices.
Third, when Apple launched the new version of iWork, the old versions were still available on your hard drive for you to use until the new versions had the features you need built in, same process they did when they upgraded FCP.
Does Pages (Numbers and Keynote) have every available functionality that everyone everywhere wants? No, but at least since the relaunch, they've been upgrading it on a pretty regular basis. Will it ever have everything, probably not.
Fourth, software does not enter the world as having every feature everyone wants. Get out of your little bubble and realize that somethings take time to get properly built in. I'd much rather see regular updates with new features as they're ready then waiting for two additional years while they check every box on every feature. There are still some lacking features in Numbers that I use as compared to Excel. So, I still use Excel.
Fifth, Photos will not have every feature you want in it, particularly if you're a heavy Aperture user. I can guarantee it. But with Apple saying that it will support plug-in's, I'm also willing to bet they already showed off that feature during the keynote, except not during the Photos demonstration. It was during the iOS demonstration with photo frameworks.
foodog
macrumors 6502a
MRU
macrumors Penryn
Exactly like Final Cut Pro X
Exactly like iWork 2013/14
I'm expecting Logic to be the next abandoned product ....
foodog
macrumors 6502a
I have laid money out for iWork over the years, and make money using the apps...which is what a professional does correct?
And the software is not free. It's built into the cost of the apple hardware. Basic economics. The only reasons apple doesn't force people to pay for software as much anymore is because of that. It's not because they are generous.
I love their products, and use them for many things. But they are getting hard to defend, especially in the pro apps sphere. They really have a problem with communication of features that they gut when releasing new apps.
And for people to defend apple apps not having BASIC functionality like copy/paste is wrong. It was wrong at the time and release, which is why Apple ONCE AGAIN (like fcp x) had to issue press statements after iWork was released promising to fix the issues.
I didn't upgrade to the new iWork until the last update because the benefits outwayed the negatives...but the app is still not where it needs to be.
Trust me, I want nothing more than Apple to handle this transition smoothly, but it doesn't look good.
r.harris1
macrumors 68020
Maybe. But if the third parties are smart, they may use the time to use the much improved Core Image APIs (including RAW processing improvements) and extensions capabilities to begin development of add-ons.
It very likely would have avoided full blown panic, but see above. If these third parties so choose, they can look at ways to utilize the new frameworks, APIs to make headway on a revamp of their own products. My guess is that these products will need mostly re-written code, based on what I have seen about the improved and revamped frameworks. Apple, as usual, doesn't handle software releases well, so totally agreed, if they had worked ahead of time with at least one high-profile third-party vendor for a statement of "yes, we'll add in our product as an extension", it would have been a lot better.
Apple hasn't mentioned Adobe, as noted elsewhere in this and other threads. That was a misstatement by TechCrunch which has since been retracted.
theFly
macrumors member
I should add: this would off course still count as "non-destructive editing", even though storing "intermediate results" (I currently understand "change blocks" to be bitmap data written back to the library - but off course I might be wrong here) would not be as efficient (storage-wise) and elegant as simply storing the "editing steps".
The downside off course would be that you cannot undo single steps done in the plugin itself! You could only undo the entire result of the plugin at once
Just like with plugins in Lightroom, where you would apply a plugin on a new myphoto_edited.tif version: Lightroom (does Aperture support plugins at all?) does not know how to undo single steps of the plugin: it simply passes the plugin the current image data (either the original or the edited one) and gets a new image back (or possibly overwriting the working copy!).
In the iOS8 (and future OS X Cocoa/Swift API) it seems that there is at least a mechanism for "requesting" and "comitting" those edit results, such that they get stored (and synced) in the Photo Library (instead of simply a new image copy 'myphoto_edited.tif', which after that plugin step is then somewhat unrelated to the original).
dragje
macrumors 6502a
Good, so just an ordinary, but fine, photo app. Nice for holiday snaps, but for a photo editor pretty much worthless. I'm glad I stayed with Lightroom.