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.
Apple Seeds First OS X 10.10.3 Yosemite Beta to Developers With Mac Photos App
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This is what I'm worried about as well. My iPhone and iPad are both only 16gb but I have photos in iPhoto and just stored in folders going back for several years. I know you can store thumbnails on the iOS devices and leave the full versions in the cloud, but I'm not even sure I have room for all the thumbnails. I'd love to be able to keep my photos in the cloud though and free up the space on my rMBP. This is something Apple needs to fix with iCloud Photo
Library before I trust my photos to it. I'll probably update to 10.10.3 when it's available for the public but rely on local storage on my Mac until then.
I bet it will. Will be really surprised if it doesn't.
----------
I have mixed feelings about the cloud.
Personally, I won't be putting my photos up there.
I just don't like the idea, plus I have photos scanned in with my digital ones going back to the 1920s to now so my library is not tiny.
However, having something sync for all family members could be interesting because I've come across a number of clients who all have seperate iPhoto libraries OR (and this is the majority) - they don't even have their photos saved! lol At all! Not once backed up.
So something has to happen to help these folks properly use their devices.
From an organizational point of view, it might help them.
From a pure upgrade point of view, it sure looks better and up to date compared to iPhoto.
I'm also curious about the organizing possibilities for videos.
Again, for me personally, I'm quite skeptical of the quote by Re/Code:
"And you can’t add custom metadata fields in the app."
I use metadata all the time and it's important to me.
I might spring and pay for the developer's fee to get it now or will wait and jump all over the public beta.
Cheers,
Keebler
I agree fully. My wife and I have shared one library for several years. This worked well for iOS devices but not for our separate computers. It will take a little bit of time to separate our libraries but it is perfect for us.
I have Lightroom for my heavy lifting. But for everything else this is perfect. I already have duplicate libraries. If I took the picture on the iOS device it goes in iPhoto first. Then it goes in Lightroom. For my other digital cameras it goes in Lightroom first and then to iPhoto.
I cannot wait to try this. It looks like the solution I've been waiting for.
I'm really happy that they released this. I also understand how more powerful features will be added over time. But I feel disappointed that they killed Aperture even before v1.0 of the new Photos app.
Projects might not exist in the same way they did in Aperture, but that's only because you're looking at it in a "folders" paradigm which Apple has been slowly moving away from. You can tag your "projects" and even clients in the tags and then isolate photos from specific projects by searching for that tag. I currently sort my Aperture projects as CLIENT > Date_ProjectName. Now I'll just add a tag for my client and a tag for the project name. I'll also be able to add tags for type (wedding, studio, etc).
There's a precedent for stacking in the iOS app. When you take multiple photos in a burst, they stack on to each other and you can pick the one you want as your select. I'm sure this will have to be available in the OS X version because feature parity is necessary for these things to work. I understand that this isn't exactly what you're looking for but it's a start.
I'm indeed concerned about referenced storage as there's no way I'll be able to fit terabytes of data inside my Mac. Nonetheless, if you're open to modernizing your paradigms like the transition from FCP7 to FCPX, you'll find that the Photos.app holds a lot of promise. Will it satisfy all pros on day 1? Nope. But that was expected.
Apple isn't waiting for the next version of OS X to release the Photos.app — a major new feature often reserved for a new OS. I think that signals that we'll see a quick iteration of features like we did with FCPX. It's going into public beta so we'll probably see plenty of iterative upgrades before it's released in its final form. We're also less than a year away from the next version of OS X at which point there'll be a larger upgrade.
Extensions are integral to Photos.app where's in Aperture, they were literally an Add-on, hidden under a couple of menus. Also, note that Photos.app extensions are going to be available directly from the App Store. There's going to be a huge incentive for developers to make extensions. In fact, there are already many who have extensions for the Photos.app in iOS so there's already a head start.
Question for those with the Photos app: how large is the database, and is it larger than the sum of all the photos in it?
I quit using iPhoto because the library maintained was almost twice the size of just the photos themselves (edit history, thumbnails, etc, I suppose), and I quickly ran out of storage.
What is the size of a Photos library, in respect to the photos stored in it? Further, how does pulling the full-res version of a photo change it; permanently, or temporarily while viewing/editing?
Cheers!
I quit using iPhoto because the library maintained was almost twice the size of just the photos themselves (edit history, thumbnails, etc, I suppose), and I quickly ran out of storage.
What is the size of a Photos library, in respect to the photos stored in it? Further, how does pulling the full-res version of a photo change it; permanently, or temporarily while viewing/editing?
Cheers!
Not sure if other people saw this, but i went to my faces album or whatever you call it and right clicked on each name and clicked delete. They no longer show up under the album tab! 
Not sure if this is a small work around or maybe apple is giving us the choice of having faces or not.. i particularly hate the feature.
Not sure if this is a small work around or maybe apple is giving us the choice of having faces or not.. i particularly hate the feature.
Anyone having issues quitting the Photos app? The import went fine but the app won't quit normally. It's stuck with 'closing the library' for the past hour and a half - have to Force Quit to shut it down.
I figured that, but is there an option to still download Photostream pics and save them in monthly events like iPhoto does?
Anyone know if 2 way syncing is enabled? My iOS devices are getting albums created on the mac, but not vice versa.
I need hierarchy and I need browsability. That can be done via smart albums but Photos doesn't seem to offer a hierarchy for smart albums (ie, organising smart albums in folders) nor does it seem to offer smart albums (I might be wrong of course). There neither seems to be keyword hierarchies. Browsability for me means that I can browse my 'keywords' in the form of smart albums (or traditionally folders and projects).
My general problem with keywords and smart albums instead of folders and projects is that one can easily end up with images appearing in no smart album at all which is not possible with folders and projects, every image will appear in one project. One has to manually keep the keyword hierarchy and smart album hierarchy in sync and one has to religiously apply keywords in a manner that they do appear in the smart album hierarchy. Which brings me to my next point, I really would like to have the ability to drag images onto smart albums such that they automatically take on the keywords of that smart album.
And while the above paragraph already shows the problems I would have in Aperture relying only on keywords, things will be much worse in Photos.
I am very open but apart from better synching with the cloud and iOS devices, there is very little in Photos that would compensate for all the missing features from Aperture. Where is the lens correction functionality for which we have waited half a decade in Aperture? Where is the better noise handling? Right, they aren't there because Photos is 100% tuned to jpeg photography where the camera already does all that.
Backups should be for when something goes wrong with your computer. Not because there's a lack of a setting in a piece of software.