Photos preview

[skaeight]

Photos API notes

https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/Photos/Reference/Photos_Framework/index.html

And, as noted above, Pixelmator already SHOWED one iOS side.
http://www.pixelmator.com/ipad/

Also Apple showed written extensions for examples and talked about how easy it was. So yeah, I kind of expect some to show up.

Listen to the podcast. Apple told him the API will not be available with the first release on the Mac. I'm not disputing it exists. (I have used the Pixelmator extension on the iPad - honestly it's a little underwhelming). But it isn't coming now for the mac. Apple was also very clear that if you need Aperture's full capabilities you should consider looking elsewhere.

**EDIT**
I should clarify, the sharing API will be available, but nothing beyond that. No editing, etc. APIs.

 

[MCAsan]

The only question is timing.

Yes. Is it Q2 or 2015 or 2016 or? The right product at the wrong time is the wrong product. I can't imagine any serious Aperture user waiting on Photo and its entourage to arrive.

 

[OreoCookie]

Yes. Is it Q2 or 2015 or 2016 or? The right product at the wrong time is the wrong product. I can't imagine any serious Aperture user waiting on Photo and its entourage to arrive.

The timing seems to be WWDC 2015 at the latest, and the reason is clear: without Photos, you have nothing to access via an API on the Mac. So you have to wait for the release of Photos. Whether Apple will expose the API to developers at launch in April or later is not clear.

 

[skaeight]

The timing seems to be WWDC 2015 at the latest, and the reason is clear: without Photos, you have nothing to access via an API on the Mac. So you have to wait for the release of Photos. Whether Apple will expose the API to developers at launch in April or later is not clear.

It seems pretty clear to me. Apple said it is not coming at launch. Listen to the podcast.

You're probably right about WWDC, but that means the API won't be available in Mac Photos until 10.11 in the fall (their usual pattern is to release the beta of the new OS at WWDC with release in the fall). That's just to get to the point where developers CAN release an extension. What comes out at that point is anyone's guess.

 

[OreoCookie]

It seems pretty clear to me. Apple said it is not coming at launch.

I don't need to listen to the podcast, I said as much beginning of last December. It's pretty obvious if you think about it.

What comes out at that point is anyone's guess.

It's pretty clear what comes after that, Apple is transitioning from its Digital Hub paradigm to its iCloud paradigm. The first apps to make the transition were technically the three iWorks apps, but there the cloud component was not as important as with Photos which I feel is the first »real« iCloud-era app (complete with web service). The only question to me is »What is next?« Will they replace iTunes with Music? And they will add more Extensions as a way for apps to work in concert, and Extensions is a (meta) feature that is a tad undervalued. (If you use Dropbox on 10.10, you're using an extension. And given that it works as well as Dropbox's sync algorithm, I have to say it works pretty damn well.)

 

[colorspace]

You missed the point entirely, has replaced a relatively good photo manipulation application with a TOY. The TOY is nothing more than a way to sell hardware... They don't give a rip about anything else...

One correction only "The TOY is nothing more than a way to sell paid iCloud storage"

----------

Aperture was great but even at its height it was Adobe, with Photoshop, that was the king of the hill. You don't "aperture" or "pixelmate" photos, you photoshop 'em

Aperture was never a competitor to Photoshop, and vice versa -- different products with different purposes. Sort of like comparing iTunes with Audacity. Some functionality overlaps, but they serve (served? sniff) significantly different purposes.

 

[CausticPuppy]

Another thing I just noticed: the Exposure adjustment in photos only goes -1.0 to 1.0, only 1 stop in either direction. I can get a hell of a lot more dynamic range out of RAW files, so it's clear that Photos is primarily intended for editing JPG's even though it does support RAW. Any more than 1 stop in JPG and it'll start looking ugly so no wonder it's limited.

Aperture for comparison allows -2.0 to +2.0.

 

[skaeight]

Another thing I just noticed: the Exposure adjustment in photos only goes -1.0 to 1.0, only 1 stop in either direction. I can get a hell of a lot more dynamic range out of RAW files, so it's clear that Photos is primarily intended for editing JPG's even though it does support RAW. Any more than 1 stop in JPG and it'll start looking ugly so no wonder it's limited.

Aperture for comparison allows -2.0 to +2.0.

That's really interesting.

 

[robgendreau]

Another thing I just noticed: the Exposure adjustment in photos only goes -1.0 to 1.0, only 1 stop in either direction. I can get a hell of a lot more dynamic range out of RAW files, so it's clear that Photos is primarily intended for editing JPG's even though it does support RAW. Any more than 1 stop in JPG and it'll start looking ugly so no wonder it's limited.

Aperture for comparison allows -2.0 to +2.0.

Those numbers are not quite the same as f stops. I'm not sure what they actually represent; in LR they go up to 5 IIRC but I don't think in any case this translates to an absolute value. In other words, does 1 in Photos = .5 in Aperture? Can you actually see a difference in the dynamic range? I guess I always assumed that somewhere in the background with the system interpretation of RAW it was the same across applications, just the interface being different.

 

[r.harris1]

Another thing I just noticed: the Exposure adjustment in photos only goes -1.0 to 1.0, only 1 stop in either direction. I can get a hell of a lot more dynamic range out of RAW files, so it's clear that Photos is primarily intended for editing JPG's even though it does support RAW. Any more than 1 stop in JPG and it'll start looking ugly so no wonder it's limited.

Aperture for comparison allows -2.0 to +2.0.

Since the slider for each adjustment goes from -1,1 (not just exposure), I wonder if it really is in terms of stop? Here's a junk image, one from Aperture (at +2) and one from Photos (+1). To my eye, I can't see the difference, and I certainly don't think it's 1 stop of difference if there is any (Photos image on the left). Histograms are virtually identical too.

 

[r.harris1]

A few more images regarding -1,1 exposure. The first image is the original, the image to the right is +2 from Aperture, the next is +1 from Photos, the last is about .8 from Photos which I was just eyeballing to approximate the image from Aperture, somewhat based on the histogram.

 

[CausticPuppy]

Since the slider for each adjustment goes from -1,1 (not just exposure), I wonder if it really is in terms of stop? Here's a junk image, one from Aperture (at +2) and one from Photos (+1). To my eye, I can't see the difference, and I certainly don't think it's 1 stop of difference if there is any (Photos image on the left). Histograms are virtually identical too.

Well that makes it even worse. So if "1" doesn't mean "1 EV", it means "1 Apple Arbitrary Lightness Value."

 

[colorspace]

Well that makes it even worse. So if "1" doesn't mean "1 EV", it means "1 Apple Arbitrary Lightness Value."

To be honest the target audience for Photos has no idea, nor interested, as to what 1EV, an F-Stop, etc mean. Photos is an appliance app for the very casual user. Photos may eventually be a good product for this crowd - and I don't mean to downplay that, but it's the HUGE step backwards just in terms of Metadata compared to Aperture -- not even not considering its actual editing feature poverty this I alone kills it for anyone serious about photography.

I think it's pointless to nitpick Photos on one little feature like this, its sort of like complaining about a Prius's luggage space when what you need for your work is a dump truck.

 

[v3rlon]

Is the -1 to +1 in the Drill-down or is it the initial 'newbie' sliders? If the former, I can forgive it. If it is in the drill down to the advanced section, then I have to agree it is not good. Exposure should be measured in EV so that you can translate it easily when talking to other photographers using other Apps. Also, it makes for a nice launch point for newbies that want to learn.

Apple arbitrary units is not something I want to deal with when there is a perfectly acceptable 'universal standard' already in place.

I really do not want -1 on photo A to be -1.3 EV and -1 on photo B to be -2.5 EV. That is utterly useless.

 

[mrex]

To be honest the target audience for Photos has no idea, nor interested, as to what 1EV, an F-Stop, etc mean.

Somewhat true but nowadays many people are learning processing their photos at home. It's not a magic or space technology. Just common terms. Learning terms and then using a software with it's own odd values is totally useless.

A few more images regarding -1,1 exposure. The first image is the original, the image ... the next is +1 from Photos, the last is about .8 from Photos which I was just eyeballing to approximate the image from Aperture, somewhat based on the histogram.

Not enough light for darks or badly burned.

 

[r.harris1]

Somewhat true but nowadays many people are learning processing their photos at home. It's not a magic or space technology. Just common terms. Learning terms and then using a software with it's own odd values is totally useless.



Not enough light for darks or badly burned.

Yeah - image was a strongly backlit, poorly exposed throwaway for illustration purposes to show similarities and differences in the exposure controls on Aperture and Photos.

 

[mrex]

Yeah - image was a strongly backlit, poorly exposed throwaway for illustration purposes to show similarities and differences in the exposure controls on Aperture and Photos.

yes, that i ment.What i ment was Photos handles the extra exposure badly compairing Aperture. Looks like it almost higlights more light areas than dark areas. When you add more exposure all light areas are burned while dark area seems to be still "underexposured". Are they trying to save dark areas? Anyway, the whole picture should be processed in the same way if you change EV.

 

[r.harris1]

yes, that i ment.What i ment was Photos handles the extra exposure badly compairing Aperture. Looks like it almost higlights more light areas than dark areas. When you add more exposure all light areas are burned while dark area seems to be still "underexposured". Are they trying to save dark areas? Anyway, the whole picture should be processed in the same way if you change EV.

Yeah - completely agreed.