Apple Says Aperture Won't Run in Future macOS Versions After Mojave

[GFS]

I have a feeling there will be a work around for Aperture in Catalina, like when they killed Final Cut Studio for FCX.

@GFS, I had not heard of RAW Power, the interface looks very similar to Aperture. If they included an Aperture like DAM it looks like it could be the first decent Aperture replacement.

Nope on the workaround from Apple. At least .. Nik Bhatt said it's highly unlikely, as Apple have said specifically that it won't run and as an ex-very senior Apple engineer, I guess he'd know. (I asked him specifically)

RAW Power as you probably guessed, was designed specifically to emulate Aperture going forward, following Aperture's demise. The crux is, that Apple have an excellent raw developer available in the OS, which they maintain for Photos and which apps can tap into. One of the cool things in RAW Power, is Nik actually explains really well, what the tools really do.

 

[^^BIGMac]

I really hope some workaround is found. Aperture is still working perfectly for me on Mojave, and I have many dozens of libraries and TBs upon TBs of images across multiple drives as I have used it not just for personal reasons but for work for over a decade.



Tried lightroom, didn't like it. Photos is great but just for my iPhone-shot, iCloud-synced stuff, but for professional work and the amount of images I go through, my work machine may stay on Mojave indefinitely. Though Photos still crashes MORE on me than Aperture and i use it far, far, far less.



I also really like all my plugins on it that also still work perfectly fine.

Take the time to learn Lightroom. It’s better.

 

[Dirtfarmer]

LOL

Let's ruthlessly corn hole the highest-spending enthusiasts who buy the highest-margin gear from us. Let's obsolete their lifetime of investment in our objectively overpriced ecosystem. After all, what company ever made money from its' professional market?

We should be able to safely burn our Pros because Hey! We have two thousand dollar cellphones!

(Now the fact that our $2K phones kind of aren't selling anymore is an entirely separate and unrelated problem, right? Right guys?)

#FIRETHEACCOUNTANT

 

[GFS]

Take the time to learn Lightroom. It’s better.

I tried Lr twice. It depends what you use it for and how you use it. Aperture is a much better DAM (which is what I'm most interested in).

 

[maflynn]

Aperture is a much better DAM (which is what I'm most interested in).

I've used both, but admittedly its been many moons since I used Aperture. How is Aperture better in the DAM category?

I've bent over backwards trying to find a replacement for LR, and in all honesty its the best package out there. I absolutely hate paying a subscription fee, but no other application integrates all the disparate parts of a workflow as well adobe has in LR. More companies are waking up to the fact that many folks want a full featured DAM, but as for 2019, they still are inferior to what LR provides.

 

[nbnbxdnb]

Aperture was good in its day. If you think Aperture is still a pro application, you are not a pro.

Judging photographers’ level of profession simply by looking at one of their tools is not professional itself and also pointless.

 

[smirking]

Judging photographers’ level of profession simply by looking at one of their tools is not professional itself and also pointless.

I normally would whole heartedly agree, but not in this case. It’s the opposite of professional to choose to use software that has no support and is liable to become a brick with a system update and make years of your work inaccessible or damaged. I’m sure there are plenty of well paid people who are this careless, but in my judgement, they lack professionalism no matter how much they’re paid.

 

[Alan Wynn]

It’s the opposite of professional to choose to use software that has no support and is liable to become a brick with a system update and make years of your work inaccessible or damaged.

One should use the tool that produces the results one wants. Just as people shoot with cameras that are no longer manufactured, one can edit with software that is no longer supported. You make many assumptions about whether people have reliable back ups of their systems, and whether they export their data on a regular basis in your statement.

I’m sure there are plenty of well paid people who are this careless, but in my judgement, they lack professionalism no matter how much they’re paid.

Again, you presume carelessness with no evidence or knowledge of people’s practices of business model. Most professional photographers deliver their product to their clients and then are done with it. They have no responsibility for archiving projects, almost none of which will ever be used again.

 

[Clix Pix]

Not everyone who uses high-end cameras or shoots in RAW or edits their images and takes the process seriously as opposed to simply firing off snapshots in jpg is actually a professional photographer who earns money. There are those who are considered "serious amateurs" or "photography enthusiasts" who shoot with as much care and interest as professionals do. Some of those people may still be using Aperture or may have already set it aside or are in the process of transitioning away from it as they've tried out various other newer image editing programs that will suit their working style moving forward.

 

[smirking]

Again, you presume carelessness with no evidence or knowledge of people’s practices of business model. Most professional photographers deliver their product to their clients and then are done with it. They have no responsibility for archiving projects, almost none of which will ever be used again.

I apologize for my attitude. I was just being cheeky with all the people who show up with the stock complaint that nobody cares about pros like them.

If you're fine with old tools and you're not griping endlessly, then kudos. You do you, but if you're someone who wheedles endlessly about change, then you're not a pro in my book. Pros ought to be able to adapt as needed.

 

[BJMRamage]

Not everyone who uses high-end cameras or shoots in RAW or edits their images and takes the process seriously as opposed to simply firing off snapshots in jpg is actually a professional photographer who earns money. There are those who are considered "serious amateurs" or "photography enthusiasts" who shoot with as much care and interest as professionals do. Some of those people may still be using Aperture or may have already set it aside or are in the process of transitioning away from it as they've tried out various other newer image editing programs that will suit their working style moving forward.

This is me ^

I am a serious Amateur (though maybe not so serious since I still use Aperture).
Aperture was a great step beyond iPhoto, and allowed me to have a DAM and non-destructive editor in one.

While I knew Aperture was dead in the water years ago, the 'sudden' "will no longer be usable" meant I NEED to pick something sooner than later.

I have tried Luminar and On1 PhotoRAW. Both seemed OK, but things weren't quite there for DAM or editing. I just started a trial of Capture One and like that a lot for editing and not sure about the DAM.

Sure, Lightroom is "professional" and I 'should' switch to that but the idea of pay-to play forever is not something I am a fan of.

 

[stillcrazyman]

Aperture was good when I used it a few years ago. Until they stopped development.
Then I tried Lr. It worked well enough, but I thought it was cumbersome, and when they started hinting at subscription only, I looked to alternatives. C1P, ON1, Graphic Converter, Luminar, and Exposure. I'm still using Exposure X4.5 as my main editor and keep ON1 around for some of their tools. DAM isn't a big issue for me.

I'm just an enthusiast with a desire for great tools to manifest my creativity. No ambitions for being a 'pro'.

 

[smirking]

I just started a trial of Capture One and like that a lot for editing and not sure about the DAM.

Capture One was what I went with. You can customize the interface and with a bit of tweaking, I got it to resemble Aperture. The DAM could be better, but it's better than most I've tried. The best part of Capture One is that you can keep it simple when you start off and as you get more comfortable, the power it has under the hood completely blows the doors off anything Aperture could offer.

 

[nbnbxdnb]

I normally would whole heartedly agree, but not in this case. It’s the opposite of professional to choose to use software that has no support and is liable to become a brick with a system update and make years of your work inaccessible or damaged. I’m sure there are plenty of well paid people who are this careless, but in my judgement, they lack professionalism no matter how much they’re paid.

Aperture is an outdated system by many measurements, not all though. And using an outdated tool does not necessarily give a person a glory of professionalism. That is also true.
However, photography, painting, writing ... is a very creative and artistic way of production. In these cases, the importance of tools along with all other elements like social status are all shadowed by a person's genius in that particular type of art. Unless you would only define "pro" as post-processing 1000 photos in a day in a manic or sweat-factory manner (symbolically speaking), which would be narrow-minded in my humble opinion, I prefer holding my own argument that, an artist's level of profession can not be judged by one of the tools he/she uses.
I read another reply from you. It seems you are pro Capture one. It is a brilliant tool. I'd like to thank you for your support to a thriving community. But bashing the software other people like to use in arbitrary way is completely unnecessary.

 

[Clix Pix]

Last year, summer of 2018, I began experimenting with various alternatives to Aperture and it became frustrating and even confusing at times. I tried Capture One Pro 11 then and although I made a serious attempt to really get with the program there I found it just wasn’t working for me and so I didn’t move onward and upward with them when the C1 upgraded it to Capture One 12..... This whole thing is definitely a process of trial-and-error to find what really matches well with one’s working style, processing/editing needs and which also allows room for growth and experimentation beyond one’s comfort level.

 

[ibgb]

With Aperture you can write all your captions, keywords, etc. back into the image file, thus making you independent of the software. With some programs like Capture One, they own all your meta data, making you locked in to their system. LR uses an extra file for metadata with raw images which you have to keep around, making life more complicated.

I have been using Photo Mechanic to add metadata into the image files. The best time to add metadata is when you bring the images into your computer, not years later. They have a beta of Photo Mechanic Plus, which may be a very good DAM system. It is essentially Photo Mechanic plus image catalogs. This allows you to find and search for that photo you may be looking for. For editing you can choose whatever you want.

With Photo Mechanic once the metadata is written into the image file you can even use iphoto to build its catalog and search for specific images.

I will probably push/write out all of aperture's metadata into the image files then use either iphoto for a catalog or Photo Mechanic Plus. Neofinder would also work, as it is essentially a spotlight search.

 

[smirking]

But bashing the software other people like to use in arbitrary way is completely unnecessary.

I apologize again for what I said. I really didn't intend for it to be a bash at people's artistry as it got interpreted.

It was a knee jerk response to yet another round of Aperture bellyaching and the constant bellyaching going on at the time in general. Of course the one sentence snarky response made in frustration is the response that defines me. Lesson learned.

That said, I truly am horrified at people who are putting their life's work into something that can blow up and take years of your sweat or even just a critical project or two. I'm a software developer and dealing with headaches and dangers of obsolete standards is a very real everyday concern. That's why I'm so enthusiastic about sharing my story of moving off Aperture after hanging onto it for too long. I clung onto it because I couldn't find anything that was on equal footing from a workflow perspective. Hanging on too long cost me dearly. I lost two extra years of edits that I really wanted to keep and some of my photos got lost in the chaos of transition.

 

[Ted13]

Sure, Lightroom is "professional" and I 'should' switch to that but the idea of pay-to play forever is not something I am a fan of.

In my case I am paying it - but find Lightroom to be a colossal waste of time whenever I do use it. And it seems to be getting less useable with its updates. So there are other reasons besides money to avoid Lightroom.

 

[ibgb]

Retroactive is an app that lets you run Aperture, iPhoto, and iTunes on macOS Catalina.
https://github.com/cormiertyshawn895/Retroactive/

 

[llirik]

[automerge]1572308522[/automerge]

Retroactive is an app that lets you run Aperture, iPhoto, and iTunes on macOS Catalina.
https://github.com/cormiertyshawn895/Retroactive/

That's awesome!

Can anyone test this out and report back?

 

[Ted13]

GitHub - cormiertyshawn895/Retroactive: Retroactive has been discontinued. You should transition from Retroactive to supported apps such as Music, iTunes for Windows, iMazing, Photos, Darktable, Lightroom Classic, and DaVinci Resolve.

Retroactive has been discontinued. You should transition from Retroactive to supported apps such as Music, iTunes for Windows, iMazing, Photos, Darktable, Lightroom Classic, and DaVinci Resolve. - ...

github.com

That's awesome!

Can anyone test this out and report back?

Yes, please! Would love to upgrade to Catalina without killing Aperture

 

[bigfatipod]

Thanks for the information. It seems like a good solution if you absolutely have to use Aperture and upgrade to Catalina.
I think my time has come to find an Aperture alternative though.

 

[Vjosullivan]

3. You clearly have no idea what a Pro is.

One definition of "pro" software might include the proviso that it is still being maintained by the manufacturer.

 

[Alan Wynn]

One definition of "pro" software might include the proviso that it is still being maintained by the manufacturer.

Not at all. Markets for applications needed for professional use can be quite small and companies that service them might not make enough to survive. That does not make the application any less professional. In this case, the company survived, but the product did not.

 

[foliovision]

Nothing really. There were much bigger photo editing apps before and after Aperture. People just don’t like their legacy apps going away.

Actually, you're wrong. Aperture was the original main DAM software (iView MediaPro was a weak competitor already in the market). Adobe rushed Lightroom to market to try to head off Aperture, which was turning heads all around the photo community. That's the problem with being very young: you don't know your history at all.