There has been a lot of discussion about alternatives to Aperture, whether Photos will work, how much some dislike Adobe, how disappointed some are with Apple, etc. I'd like to offer a humble alternative, Graphic Converter. I know I've mentioned it before, but I had occasion to do some major work with it recently and I realized I use it more than I realize, even though I have and use Lightroom a lot, and Capture One, and DxO, and Nik, and MacPhun, and After Shot Pro, and Photoshop, and Aperture. And others I probably forgot, not to mention some demos. I had an issue where some CR2 RAWs weren't displaying their keywords in the keyword palette, so I emailed support. Who is the developer. He asked the next day for some example files, and by the next day he had a beta for me with the problem fixed. Are you gonna get that kind of service with any of the other options out there? People keep talking about Apple's lack of commitment and Adobe's avarice. So if that's important to you, you can't beat Graphic Converter. Affordable, and committed to the Mac platform since the Nineties. And it STILL does stuff that none of the others can do. It has been occurring to me that using GC in conjunction with Photos might be the bomb. GC is sort of the opposite of Photos: it can do things that Photos cannot. Good examples are all sorts of metadata edits, batch adjustments, geolocation, and time shifts. I was using it to batch prepare and convert RAWS for use on a web site, the sort of thing Photos won't be good at. And it has a great browser: you can drag and drop photos to other Finder folders like you do in LR, but GC also shows non-Photo folders and doesn't require an import first. And it's smart enough to move the XMP sidecars with the RAW photo files. So give the demo a shot. For Aperture refugees, it might be handy in making a transition out of that program, since it can do so much stuff with metadata and even moving images, as well as all sorts of batch operations.