Where are all the people who thought Photos would have Aperture featuress?
All I expect from Apple is to offer me an awesome photo management system that works across all my devices and creative software.
Professional photographers do not need Aperture as they make use of Lightroom & Photoshop. Two powerful apps from Adobe, available at a very low monthly fee. However, if done well, the Photos app could replace Adobe's Bridge.
That is not to say that there is no future for Aperture. It could appeal to the semi-professional, someone who doesn't need the powerful features of Photoshop.
Does anyone know if Photos will also be able to access its library from an external drive just like iPhoto? Or we'll be forced to keep the library on the internal drive now? Thanks.
1 - Does the beta give the user the ability to organize projects, albums, etc into folders? 2 - How does syncing with devices work for photos that are locally stored on the Mac?
Regarding the thumbnails in the article... they do not work too well in Safari for me, but they look fine in Firefox.
I have a question. Lots of posters on MacRumors are complaining because this app doesn't have feature parity with Aperture. But I thought this app was supposed to be an iPhoto replacement not an Aperture replacement?Yes Apple stopped development on Aperture but I don't remember them specifically saying Photos was a replacement, only that libraries would migrate.
I have a question. Lots of posters on MacRumors are complaining because this app doesn't have feature parity with Aperture. But I thought this app was supposed to be an iPhoto replacement not an Aperture replacement?Yes Apple stopped development on Aperture but I don't remember them specifically saying Photos was a replacement, only that libraries would migrate.
Apple told pros to migrate to Lightroom. Total surrender of that market segment.
But most Aperture users were not pros, but enthusiasts like myself. Photos is a major disappointment from what we have seen so far.
The only thing that I need now is to see is a comparison between Aperture and Photos features. While I understand the need for a comparison with iPhoto, this is a replacement for Aperture too. I, and I think many others, are Aperture users and we need to know more about that. We are losing our product too. There wasn't any information about that except mentioning the tools.
Oh really? Because reading this thread or every thread is nothing but a whiny pissing match over what this can do vs Aperture vs. iPhoto vs. Lightroom vs. Who gives a ****.
I want to use THIS program. And I would like if the god damn thread would talk about this program.
Everyone of you should have your posts deleted for derailing the entire thread into your childish debate. No one cares.
After opening Photos and letting it create a new library with just my iCloud content, I can see there is no way to import anything from iPhoto at that point.
So I held option, and selected my iPhoto Library to open in Photos. That went surprisingly fast and the entire library is now there. Great.
Trying to turn on iCloud, (you have to tell it that this is your primary library, whatever), it scans photo/video size, and now just says Updating...
I let it alone over night and it still just says Updating...
I gather it will take a bit to upload everything, but it is not uploading anything. And yes I have enough iCloud storage for this.
All about sharing, integration, and slick look. Little to nothing about converting raw, editing, adjusting and anything that a photographer would want. This would be fine if Apple didn't abandon Aperture. Big mistake.
Oh really? Because reading this thread or every thread is nothing but a whiny pissing match over what this can do vs Aperture vs. iPhoto vs. Lightroom vs. Who gives a ****.
I want to use THIS program. And I would like if the god damn thread would talk about this program.
Everyone of you should have your posts deleted for derailing the entire thread into your childish debate. No one cares.
1) Yes really. You asked a question that was already answered by [@]Boltsfan17[/@] in post 21, where he linked to The Verge article, answering your question.
All about sharing, integration, and slick look. Little to nothing about converting raw, editing, adjusting and anything that a photographer would want. This would be fine if Apple didn't abandon Aperture. Big mistake.
I'm missing future updates to Aperture as well. Still, not that the program stops working all of a sudden. It's supported throughout OSX 10. As much as I prefer that program, I wouldn't want to call it a mistake. At $79 it's hardly a big revenue. iPhones are, so the tighter the ecosystem integration the more enticed people will be to Get A Mac. If I'm not mistaken.
I don't know but I know a lot of us hoped it would have. Just spent the night playing with it. Sadly this is iPhoto gone to the cloud I won't elaborate due to the DNA (not that seems to bother AI but it does me).
I will say, it's a great product for the masses' holiday snaps and the like but useless for a serious photographer. I just don't understand why Apple don't just keep Aperture. Lots of photographers prefer it to Lightroom. We have Garage Band and Logic Pro X, we have iMovie and FCPro X why on earth can't we have Photos and Aperture Pro X? /rant
"We have Garage Band and Logic Pro X, we have iMovie and FCPro X...."
That's what we have - for now. Nothing stopping Apple from replacing Garage Band / Logic Pro X with an Audio app and iMovie / FCPX with a Video app. Not saying it will happen but it wouldn't surprise me either.
Apple told pros to migrate to Lightroom. Total surrender of that market segment.
But most Aperture users were not pros, but enthusiasts like myself. Photos is a major disappointment from what we have seen so far.
Disappointment based on what? Like I said I don't remember Apple ever saying Photos was meant to replace Aperture, at least not the first version. If that's what people were expecting then I think they had unrealistic expectations.
Disappointment based on what? Like I said I don't remember Apple ever saying Photos was meant to replace Aperture, at least not the first version. If that's what people were expecting then I think they had unrealistic expectations.
You're right, Apple never said it was a replacement for Aperture.
The only thing that I need now is to see is a comparison between Aperture and Photos features. While I understand the need for a comparison with iPhoto, this is a replacement for Aperture too. I, and I think many others, are Aperture users and we need to know more about that. We are losing our product too. There wasn't any information about that except mentioning the tools.
Just because Apple stopped development on Aperture doesn't mean they're considering the Photos app to be its replacement. If you did a side by side feature comparison you'd be disappointed as the Photos app does not have feature parity with Aperture. Maybe someday it will, all depends on what Apple's intentions are. Maybe they're perfectly fine with professionals/prosumers going to Adobe.
However, would anyone in their right mind entrust all their beloved photos to iCloud without storing them locally on their Mac as well? Seems foolhardy to me.
... I hope I don't have to use iCloud with this though.
Totally agree on not wanting to use iCloud. I don't want any of my personal stuff like photos sitting in the cloud. Foolish stuff.
Separately from personal preferences, back to a factual/objective question:
Assuming that one does not (will not) use iCloud for anything (no account, no appleID, etc), is this strictly a step down in functionality? In other words, assume that I never want to do any hosting/sharing/publishing of my personal photos online, how does this new app compare with "local" iPhoto.
Comments
Where are all the people who thought Photos would have Aperture featuress?
All I expect from Apple is to offer me an awesome photo management system that works across all my devices and creative software.
Professional photographers do not need Aperture as they make use of Lightroom & Photoshop. Two powerful apps from Adobe, available at a very low monthly fee. However, if done well, the Photos app could replace Adobe's Bridge.
That is not to say that there is no future for Aperture. It could appeal to the semi-professional, someone who doesn't need the powerful features of Photoshop.
Does anyone know if Photos will also be able to access its library from an external drive just like iPhoto? Or we'll be forced to keep the library on the internal drive now? Thanks.
If you're having an affair you've got bigger problems than getting caught.
I have a couple of questions...
1 - Does the beta give the user the ability to organize projects, albums, etc into folders?
2 - How does syncing with devices work for photos that are locally stored on the Mac?
Regarding the thumbnails in the article... they do not work too well in Safari for me, but they look fine in Firefox.
Thanks again!
I have a question. Lots of posters on MacRumors are complaining because this app doesn't have feature parity with Aperture. But I thought this app was supposed to be an iPhoto replacement not an Aperture replacement?Yes Apple stopped development on Aperture but I don't remember them specifically saying Photos was a replacement, only that libraries would migrate.
Apple told pros to migrate to Lightroom. Total surrender of that market segment.
But most Aperture users were not pros, but enthusiasts like myself. Photos is a major disappointment from what we have seen so far.
By reading the thread.
Oh really? Because reading this thread or every thread is nothing but a whiny pissing match over what this can do vs Aperture vs. iPhoto vs. Lightroom vs. Who gives a ****.
I want to use THIS program. And I would like if the god damn thread would talk about this program.
Everyone of you should have your posts deleted for derailing the entire thread into your childish debate. No one cares.
After opening Photos and letting it create a new library with just my iCloud content, I can see there is no way to import anything from iPhoto at that point.
So I held option, and selected my iPhoto Library to open in Photos. That went surprisingly fast and the entire library is now there. Great.
Trying to turn on iCloud, (you have to tell it that this is your primary library, whatever), it scans photo/video size, and now just says Updating...
I let it alone over night and it still just says Updating...
I gather it will take a bit to upload everything, but it is not uploading anything. And yes I have enough iCloud storage for this.
UPDATE: A Reboot seems to have helped.
1) Yes really. You asked a question that was already answered by [@]Boltsfan17[/@] in post 21, where he linked to The Verge article, answering your question.
2) Whassup wit da harsh statements? U mad?
I'm missing future updates to Aperture as well. Still, not that the program stops working all of a sudden. It's supported throughout OSX 10. As much as I prefer that program, I wouldn't want to call it a mistake. At $79 it's hardly a big revenue. iPhones are, so the tighter the ecosystem integration the more enticed people will be to Get A Mac. If I'm not mistaken.
I don't know but I know a lot of us hoped it would have. Just spent the night playing with it. Sadly this is iPhoto gone to the cloud I won't elaborate due to the DNA (not that seems to bother AI but it does me).
I will say, it's a great product for the masses' holiday snaps and the like but useless for a serious photographer. I just don't understand why Apple don't just keep Aperture. Lots of photographers prefer it to Lightroom. We have Garage Band and Logic Pro X, we have iMovie and FCPro X why on earth can't we have Photos and Aperture Pro X? /rant
"We have Garage Band and Logic Pro X, we have iMovie and FCPro X...."
That's what we have - for now. Nothing stopping Apple from replacing Garage Band / Logic Pro X with an Audio app and iMovie / FCPX with a Video app. Not saying it will happen but it wouldn't surprise me either.
Disappointment based on what? Like I said I don't remember Apple ever saying Photos was meant to replace Aperture, at least not the first version. If that's what people were expecting then I think they had unrealistic expectations.
Disappointment based on what? Like I said I don't remember Apple ever saying Photos was meant to replace Aperture, at least not the first version. If that's what people were expecting then I think they had unrealistic expectations.
You're right, Apple never said it was a replacement for Aperture.
Just because Apple stopped development on Aperture doesn't mean they're considering the Photos app to be its replacement. If you did a side by side feature comparison you'd be disappointed as the Photos app does not have feature parity with Aperture. Maybe someday it will, all depends on what Apple's intentions are. Maybe they're perfectly fine with professionals/prosumers going to Adobe.
Totally agree on not wanting to use iCloud. I don't want any of my personal stuff like photos sitting in the cloud. Foolish stuff.
Separately from personal preferences, back to a factual/objective question:
Assuming that one does not (will not) use iCloud for anything (no account, no appleID, etc), is this strictly a step down in functionality? In other words, assume that I never want to do any hosting/sharing/publishing of my personal photos online, how does this new app compare with "local" iPhoto.
This ^^ is my worry. Without breaking your NDA ("DNA" above, haha), what are your thoughts on the above?