Photos App Eats a lot of space

pitt1717

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Jul 13, 2007
283
15
So i like to organize my files into a folder structure i can understand. so I always uncheck to copy into iPhoto / photos app database. normally the database grows to ~1 gig or so....
Well now in the photos app, I'm half way through and I'm over 6 gig..

Anyone else use any of the photo apps and do NOT copy into the database see this too?
 

MCAsan

macrumors 601
Jul 9, 2012
4,524
410
Atlanta
Completely underwhelmed by Photos beta. Where are any serious editing features? No mention made of doing a referenced library. I can not believe they spent this much time to release so little.

The gave up on Aperture for this? Makes me look forward to LR 6 all the more.
 
Last edited:

rjphoto

macrumors 6502a
Mar 7, 2005
822
0
Thanks for the warning

Downloaded 10.10.3 last night and had planned on running some test on my wife's iPhoto Library on my test machine.

I'll be watching for problems.

That's why it's called a test machine...
 

Bending Pixels

macrumors 65816
Jul 22, 2010
1,243
306
MCAsian - while Photos editing features are far better than what was in iPhoto, it's not Aperture. It looks as if Photos will be a great editor if your main camera is an iPhone. If you're using a DSLR, look at Lightroom or something else.
 

robgendreau

macrumors 68040
Jul 13, 2008
3,284
229
You can do a referenced library; but "copy" on import is turned on by default. And Photos ignores whether the Aperture library it imports is referenced; IOW it will convert a referenced Aperture library into a managed Photos library by default.

I also think it takes up tons of space with face previews; maybe try turning those off.
 

BJMRamage

macrumors 68020
Oct 2, 2007
2,433
860
Here are a couple of screen shots that shows the various Adjustments you can open. It too two shots to get the full set.

There is no indication how how any plugins or extensions could be added.

at least there is more here than on iOS.

I was afraid since they will all need to sync, (and how people are ripping into this program) that the Photos on Mac would be severely limited and handicapped. it looks like it has potential...a simple Auto and quick edits or a more refined touch/edit.

I would love to have Photos have all the Aperture "adjustments" available and possibly hidden as a default but check off the ones you want to add to your daily adjustments. I also would NEED to have the ability to save Adjustments and copy adjustments to other photos, like in Aperture.
 

Traverse

macrumors 604
Mar 11, 2013
6,727
2,925
Here
at least there is more here than on iOS.

I was afraid since they will all need to sync, (and how people are ripping into this program) that the Photos on Mac would be severely limited and handicapped. it looks like it has potential...a simple Auto and quick edits or a more refined touch/edit.

I would love to have Photos have all the Aperture "adjustments" available and possibly hidden as a default but check off the ones you want to add to your daily adjustments. I also would NEED to have the ability to save Adjustments and copy adjustments to other photos, like in Aperture.
It has potential, but I'm just expecting Apple to disappoint me like they did with iLife, iWork, OS X, iOS, Aperture...
 

urkel

macrumors 68030
Nov 3, 2008
2,720
760
MCAsian - while Photos editing features are far better than what was in iPhoto, it's not Aperture. It looks as if Photos will be a great editor if your main camera is an iPhone. If you're using a DSLR, look at Lightroom or something else.
I have to disagree with the "iPhoto users will love it" reasoning that many people fall back on.

While it clearly isn't an Aperture replacement for Pro users, I dont feel that its that great for amateurs either. Lets be honest, even though the interface emulates the iOS photos app, who the heck uses the iOS photos app?!? I know many people who've moved their entire lives and memories to the iPhone camera and NONE of them know how to edit photos in the photos app. So this claim that "Its better than iPhoto" or "Its just like iOS Photos.app" may be true when discussing operation and granular features, in the hands of most average users then none of this stuff is easy to figure out.

I really feel that giving the finger to Aperture users really doesnt make sense because in the end then we're the only ones editing photos on a computer.
 

VirtualRain

macrumors 603
Aug 1, 2008
6,304
114
Vancouver, BC
I have to disagree with the "iPhoto users will love it" reasoning that many people fall back on.

While it clearly isn't an Aperture replacement for Pro users, I dont feel that its that great for amateurs either. Lets be honest, even though the interface emulates the iOS photos app, who the heck uses the iOS photos app?!? I know many people who've moved their entire lives and memories to the iPhone camera and NONE of them know how to edit photos in the photos app. So this claim that "Its better than iPhoto" or "Its just like iOS Photos.app" may be true when discussing operation and granular features, in the hands of most average users then none of this stuff is easy to figure out.

I really feel that giving the finger to Aperture users really doesnt make sense because in the end then we're the only ones editing photos on a computer.
True, but the sliders in Photos for "Light" and "Color" go a long ways toward making photo editing easier for the average Joe. Not everyone knows what adjusting the exposure means, but people know they want their photo lighter or darker.

Maybe Apple's smarter than we give them credit for... by giving the average Mac and iPhone owner a simple photo editing tool, maybe they'll start using them, and ultimately demand more, and maybe then when there's enough demand, we'll get a full-blown RAW converter again :D

I played with Photos briefly last night and the only thing that I found surprising was the amazing performance. It's unbelievably responsive compared to Aperture, which was way more responsive than Lightroom, Capture One, or DxO. The other RAW app vendors need to talk to Apple and figure out how to make their apps just as snappy. It's night and day different!
 

FredT2

macrumors 6502a
Mar 18, 2009
556
96
MCAsian - while Photos editing features are far better than what was in iPhoto, it's not Aperture. It looks as if Photos will be a great editor if your main camera is an iPhone. If you're using a DSLR, look at Lightroom or something else.
Why would you not want the same editing tools for iPhone photos that you would expect for a DSLR? iPhone 6 can take amazing photos and benefits from more capable editors just as much as higher end cameras.
 

pitt1717

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Jul 13, 2007
283
15
so tonight i remade a library and let it finish. again, NOT copying into the library and iCloud off. My folder is 69gb (yes i know, i will be going through and cleaning what i can) which is a mix of raw and jpeg.after the import the library size is 21gb....
so together thats 90gb on my rMBP. I don't trust iCloud to hold all of my originals and not sure i want to have a library take up that much space. I wish i could figure out why its so much or just hope apple optimizes this a bit better as it matures.
 

v3rlon

macrumors 6502a
Sep 19, 2014
561
209
Earth (usually)
It's really quite simple...they too need to strip all the features out of their software. :p
"LR7, now with NO editing whatsoever. Due to the incredible feat of engineering this was, we are upping the subscription cost to....well, just contact us and one of our finance specialists will be happy to help you. Act now, and we will have a nutrition specialist explain how you can live on ramen noodles and cheerios if you take the right multivitamins.

LR7 - faster than ever"