Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Notifying Aperture Users of Impending Removal From Mac App Store

doelcm82 said:
You could use the favorite functionality instead, or assign a specific keyword to the photos you want to flag.
Click to expand...

A hotkey for flagging is a whole lot different than selecting keywords and typing something in. I haven't looked at Photos because the fundamental premise, putting my library in the cloud, is ludicrous to me, especially given my super duper uverse max available upload speed of 1.5 Mbps. (Let's hear it for the awesome AT&T fiber solution!) At that rate, I don't think Photos will ever finish running, I can take more pictures than it can upload in a day. :rolleyes:

I know there's supposed to be a local only version, I guess I'll get to it when I get there, I wonder how it's going to handle a library of tens of thousands of photos? Aperture has challenges with it, I get to relearn the whole managing your large library effectively all over again, I guess.

Honestly, it would have been better to have fixed Aperture than redesign the wheel, even if that effectively meant rebuilding the entire app. At least have a built in migration - Aperture frequently converted your library to the new version, and it was one way. This could have been something similar, as long as all the Aperture functionality was there.

----------
nubero said:
The competition being Windows Movie Maker…
Click to expand...

Premeire, Sony, and a couple of others. Movie Maker is iMovie's competition.
 
MickeyAlexander said:
You can actually keep multiple libraries in OS X Photos! Hold the option key while starting the application, and it will ask you which library to use (or create a new one). Only the 'system' library will be attached to iCloud (if you choose to), and I'm personally keeping my 500GB+ Aperture library as a separate, local Photos library.
Click to expand...

So I need one library to share my baby photos with the grandparents and aunties, and another library for all my other photos? That's going to be a PIA.
 
jwdsail said:
apple.com/feedback ...

left feedback at both the Aperture and OS X sections...

We have a better chance of our thoughts being seen there than most anywhere else.



jwd
Click to expand...

I left feedback for all the good it'll do.
 
Does it just download a DMG to your computer from the mac app store? If so just download it and then save the dmg somewhere else before it installs it and then deletes the dmg if you ever need to reinstall it or transfer to another computer.
 
Dodge and burn?

Can someone tell me if the new Photos program has dodge (lighten) and burn (darken) tools? If so, can you scroll the size of the brush like you can in Aperture?
 
zorinlynx said:
The biggest flaw in Photos is that it's all or nothing when it comes to putting your photos on iCloud.

I'd rather have a subset of my photos in iCloud, and keep the rest archived on my computer and not using up iCloud space.

It just shows that Apple seems to be doing this to sell iCloud subscriptions, and not to improve the user experience.
Click to expand...

It pretty much shows that Photos is consumer software by design. It is not a replacement for Aperture, but an alternative. It will only entice ‘prosumers’ or amateur photographers, but not professionals. Many filters and editing tools might be there, but it’s just not a nice application for organising projects. Just as iTunes, Photos is for enjoying your content, not organising or editing it (even though you can).

ArisaemaDracont said:
So none then?

Wow. That's pretty awful. After a Numbers file in iCloud just randomly went corropt on me, I don't want to use iCloud for primary file storage at-all. It would be best if there was a screen-resolution copy on iCloud but the primary photo library was still local.
Click to expand...

Just imagine if it corrupts one of your pictures in the cloud and you don’t have an original on either device. It’s a pretty big risk, especially with Apple. I will be sticking with Photo Stream for the foreseeable future and keep iCloud Photo Library off. That way I still get my latest pictures on my devices and can sync them all with my Mac through iTunes Wi-Fi sync, which is really under-appreciated these days.
 
newdeal said:
Does it just download a DMG to your computer from the mac app store? If so just download it and then save the dmg somewhere else before it installs it and then deletes the dmg if you ever need to reinstall it or transfer to another computer.
Click to expand...

It downloads the Aperture app which is self-contained and can be transfered to any Mac for use and can be stored on an external drive for backup purposes.
 
zorinlynx said:
The biggest flaw in Photos is that it's all or nothing when it comes to putting your photos on iCloud.

I'd rather have a subset of my photos in iCloud, and keep the rest archived on my computer and not using up iCloud space.

It just shows that Apple seems to be doing this to sell iCloud subscriptions, and not to improve the user experience.
Click to expand...

How is that? The user experience is obviously better if you don't have to remember which photos are in what location or device. All your photos everywhere is really as good as it gets from a UX perspective.

Sure it costs more money if you have a large library but that's how life works. A couple dollars a month is well worth it in my opinion for what iCloud and Photos does that no other solution can provide:

A full library manager with nondestructive edits synced across all devices with my entire library available no matter the device. And with a largely consistent software experience for editing and management on all devices.
 
mw360 said:
Probably won't work in 10.11 which is... argh... just a few months away.
Click to expand...

I don't know why this would be "probable." "Possible," yes, but doesn't seem very likely based on Apple's history. For example, Final Cut Pro X was introduced in 2011, yet Final Cut Pro 7 still runs on Yosemite, more or less. Apple may not be considering compatibility with FCP 7 when it updates OS X, but they don't seem to have gone out of their way to break it.

The "life of Yosemite" doesn't end when the next version of OS X is released. Apple still supports (including issuing security patches for) Lion, Mountain Lion, and Mavericks, and Apple is not at all quick to remove code from OS X that's necessary for the operation of legacy apps. Ceasing development/support is not the same as intentionally making it unusable.
 
bsegel said:
Can someone tell me if the new Photos program has dodge (lighten) and burn (darken) tools? If so, can you scroll the size of the brush like you can in Aperture?
Click to expand...

At present it doesn't. It also blacks black point and contrast adjustments. These are present in the iPhone version, 8.3, so I suspect they'll be added to the final version of Photos for OX.
 
newagemac said:
How is that? The user experience is obviously better if you don't have to remember which photos are in what location or device. All your photos everywhere is really as good as it gets from a UX perspective.

Sure it costs more money if you have a large library but that's how life works. A couple dollars a month is well worth it in my opinion for what iCloud and Photos does that no other solution can provide:

A full library manager with nondestructive edits synced across all devices with my entire library available no matter the device. And with a largely consistent software experience for editing and management on all devices.
Click to expand...

The difference is that people working professionally, or in a professional manner, often have specific file system locations for certain kinds of images and other data. Aperture supported that.

Apple now wants users to go with amateur-hour, quicky, iPad friendly dump all photos everywhere. While that really is better for the iPhone selfie crowd it does not necessarily work for serious photographers. Hence real pro apps like Photoshop and Lightroom.

Anyone who still believes that Apple supports creative pros probably believes all the things they read on the various Mac fan sites including MacRumors.
 
MickeyAlexander said:
You can actually keep multiple libraries in OS X Photos! Hold the option key while starting the application, and it will ask you which library to use (or create a new one). Only the 'system' library will be attached to iCloud (if you choose to), and I'm personally keeping my 500GB+ Aperture library as a separate, local Photos library.
Click to expand...

This is interesting; and good to know. My current Aperture library is 4-500GB and 80K images. Mostly from DSLR shoots and such. I was hoping there was an option like this as I would still like to use iCloud for my phone photos as it is just handy. Knowing I can keep my main library local, and have another for the phone, or sharing is good to know.
 
akm3 said:
If I purchased it will I still be able to download it on a new (or restored) mac in the future?
Click to expand...

I have had a lot of apps (Mac / iOS) that get pulled after I purchase them all the time. Never can re-download again. This also includes Movies and TV shows too. I never hear much about this from anyone else.
 
AppleInLVX said:
Hard to forgive them for this. Musicians and movie makers get awesome apps and we get half-baked experimentation. I get that eventually everything will be in the cloud, and photos was the next thing after they figured out documents. What I don't get is why they kayboshed the whole thing for professionals *before* the cloud options were anywhere near as good as what we already have.
Click to expand...

Then I don't need to order that 4TB HDD?
 
Question: is Photos able to export original photos with sidecar metadata files?
Context: I currently use iPhoto to manage and tag all my photos. I eventually want to export my photos with all the tag metadata as sidecar files, which I know iPhoto cannot do, but aperture can. Since they share the same library, I was planning on buying aperture for that sole purpose, to export all my photos with sidecar metadata.
So do I need to fork over $80 and buy aperture before it becomes unavailable? Or will Photos be able to do what I need (for free)?
 
I know there are a lot of die hard aperture fans out there, but honestly guys, it's time to switch to Lightroom or Capture One. You'll be very happy that you did.
 
scottsjack said:
Apple now wants users to go with amateur-hour, quicky, iPad friendly dump all photos everywhere. While that really is better for the iPhone selfie crowd it does not necessarily work for serious photographers. Hence real pro apps like Photoshop and Lightroom.
Click to expand...

I agree completely. And as soon as you upload your photos, you have little control where would end up or who has access to them.

I'm an amateur photographer, but learned a while ago that storing my photos independently from any app or OS is the best way to keep them for a long time.

Why every big company wants to store all our data on their computers? After all a cloud is nothing more (from the consumer's point of view) then a stranger's computer. To store locally it is not expensive at all, and much much faster.

I would not store any of my photos or documents on apple or any other company's computers when you can have a decent backup system for under $200. They change their policy and you either spend a lot of time removing your data, or your screwed.

And this new strategy of Apple to force consumers to upgrade or change software it's just weird. New iWork was released couple years ago: it was simplified. Do you think Photos will have the features that Aperture had? Nope, never.

Just frustrated is all, that Apple will decide for it's consumers again, what is best for them.
 
zorinlynx said:
The biggest flaw in Photos is that it's all or nothing when it comes to putting your photos on iCloud.

I'd rather have a subset of my photos in iCloud, and keep the rest archived on my computer and not using up iCloud space.

It just shows that Apple seems to be doing this to sell iCloud subscriptions, and not to improve the user experience.
Click to expand...

I see others have responded to this, but I thought that I saw that we would have the option to locally store the original files. Am I not understanding this right?

I have no desire to store my originals on iCloud. While I like the idea that edits can made on one device and show up on all the devices, I just do not have enough confidence in cloud based storage. Plus, I often do edits while on the train on my way to work, and don't have internet access.

Also, I may be in the minority, but I don't want to have two libraries with my photo files in them. That just takes up too much storage. I wonder how others are addressing that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back