Adobe publishes how-to guide for migrating from Apple's Aperture to Lightroom

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 70
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,438member
    The guide, titled "Making the Switch from Aperture to Adobe Photoshop Lightroom" (<a href="http://landing.adobe.com/dam/downloads/whitepapers/54511.en.switch-from-aperture-to-lightroom.pdf">PDF link</a>), outlines a <a href="<a href="http://www.dpbolvw.net/click-1989299-11395457?url=http://landing.adobe.com/en/na/products/creative-cloud/54511-aperture-switcher.html?PID=7257876" target="_top">step-by-step process</a> by which current Aperture users can migrate photos and projects from Apple's app to Adobe's subscription service.

    THAT is one heck of a stupid way to migrate. If this is an indication of Adobe's IQ level I give them a single digit. Stupidity to the max. Not only are they wrong on a few of their statements, they also have you use up massive amounts of disc space, where many photographers use SSD for speed, making this 'migration document' an expensive. Export and then copy instead of moving? Why would I want to retain the exported photos if I can simply redo that step for any reason?

    Take note of the most important thing in LR: "Lightroom cannot read adjustments made in Aperture." This I understand, somewhat - the software adjustments are most likely propriety software from Apple and inaccessible to Adobe. Anyway, when they say: "For any photos you have edited in Aperture, you should transfer the original plus a .tiff file with adjustments applied. Then, in Lightroom, you can organize the original and the .tiff file so that they appear alongside each other." I feel like they don't get a photographers' workflow at all. I mean, how much free disc space do they expect from us to have? This action alone already triples the amount photos take up now, and that is without calculating in the larger exported versions as opposed to original photos out of Aperture.

    Do yourself a favour so you don't need to take my word for it. Take a photo, make adjustments. Now export the original, the adjusted version and also take a look in the Finder at the original photo file: see the file size difference.


    Also, take note of these tiddybits from that .pdf from Adobe:

    In addition, Lightroom cannot read Aperture color labels, flags, or custom metadata fields. So, before you export your originals, use Smart Albums or the search filter to find images by those attributes, and apply corresponding keywords (for example, Color-red, Flagged, or Meta-ModelRelease-Yes).

    FAQ:
    Q: Is there any metadata or information that will not be transferred in this workflow? A: The following metadata is not be transferred to Lightroom:
    • Color labels*
    • Flags*
    • Custom metadata fields* • Places information
    • Face information
    • Books
    • Slideshows
    • Light tables
    • Web journals
    • Web pages


    Oh, and also make note that exporting your original photos is not the same thing as copying them from the Finder to somewhere else: Aperture does indeed modify a photo when exporting it as an 'original'. See the file size grow, of ten by as much as 30%. Photos I shot with a D40 back in 2006 that were 740KB are over 1MB when doing an 'export original' in Aperture. Also, photos imported through iCloud get the "Photo Stream" keyword added. You might want to strip that out in Aperture before migrating to LR.

    jlandd wrote: »
    That's not exactly a stamp of confidence from Apple. Photos isn't out yet. When it is I guarantee the second or third minor Yosemite update renders Aperture incompatible ( for no actual technical reason). Photos and Aperture will not coexist except for a cursory short period. Otherwise no Aperture user would ever bother with Photos.

    Migrating before that time makes perfect sense.

    1. Strange guarantee you're giving here. Apple even said Aperture will remain working after upgrading to X10.10. Heck, even FCP7 works on the new version.

    2. Why think, or say, that photographers won't bother with the new Photos app without having used it? I don't expect all Aperture features to be available in Photos, but they might, be it from Apple or 3rd party plug-ins.

    There are no guarantees here, but Apple sure is paving the road ahead. Once again.

    justbobf wrote: »
    The trouble with migrating to Lightroom is that only the original or the modified file will follow. Many, many of my photos have adjustments to them. Both iPhoto and Aperture save the original and the modified version of the photo. (Apparently Aperture saves the modified version as non-destructive instructions only.) If I understand this correctly, migrating will only bring over the original or the modified version. (Perhaps this does not pertain to RAW files.) So, this will not do for me. I'll wait and see what Apple has in store. Their brief presentation showed some potentially very exciting features. Apparently, the software will try to make several common adjustments at once, but will have toggle arrows to allow access to the individual adjustments and finer control. Very exciting to me!

    Indeed looks like we need to choose between transferring over the originals or the modified photos. I for one am choosing the latter, but will retain the original Aperture library as well.

    LR I am weary of, and probably won't invest time into it to see if that is a 'viable solution'. Too time consuming, but if reports are positive after they released their migration tool I'll rethink that.
  • Reply 22 of 70
    It looks like a great opportunity for a third party to step in here. If Apple won't reverse there silly decision I'd like to see someone else have a go. Just no Adobe for me.
  • Reply 23 of 70
    For Adobes read Adobe's, or is that US grammar too? Does someone check your grammar and syntax before you publish stuff?
  • Reply 24 of 70
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aussiepaul View Post



    It looks like a great opportunity for a third party to step in here. If Apple won't reverse there silly decision I'd like to see someone else have a go. Just no Adobe for me.

     

     

    It's not as great of an opportunity as you might think due to lack of growth. The price model left in place by Adobe and Apple also isn't that desirable when you figure the amount of work. First raw processors are ridiculously labor intensive. You need to deal with interpolation, rasterization, noise (and sometimes banding) reduction, sharpening algorithms, and a lot of other things. Each camera model supported requires a basic input profile that describes it relative to an internal working space of either scene or output referred varieties. The manufacturers won't provide them, and aside from that they use different encodings and byte ordering, making it more work. To even support modern features such as lack of hard clamping on intermediate conversions or what might be considered true raw exposure compensation (compensation applied prior to full rasterization of data). All of this has to work across many raw formats without breaking or corrupting metadata from one version to the next. I think it's just too much hassle to survive as a standalone product at a really desirable level of fit and finish.

     

    That's just the raw processing portion and does not include the issue of writing filters. These things are used for organization and archiving, which anyone would expect from a new application. Add in some budget for marketing to wrangle customers from the typical giants, and it gets even more excessive.

     

    I can't see this on the Mac at all. The place where newer applications seem to thrive is on the idevices. Some of these packages could be done with far smaller codebases and sold to a broader range of customers. I think that on the Mac it's just asking for a flop.

  • Reply 25 of 70
    thepixeldocthepixeldoc Posts: 2,257member
    rob53 wrote: »
    I'll wait to see how Photos shapes up and where it's going before even thinking about using an Adobe product ever again. Pixelmator and Acorn are getting better every day and iDraw does as much vector drawing as I need to do for a whole lot less money.

    For your vector drawing needs you might also want to keep your eye on Affinity Designer, currently in Beta.

    Looking quite good and the developers seem to be extremely dedicated towards updates and active discussion within their forums.
  • Reply 26 of 70
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,438member
    wprowe wrote: »
    I followed the instructions to test transferring a sample of images from Aperture to Lightroom. The purpose was to see whether the IPTC data did in fact transfer over correctly. In my test, I tried raw, PSD, TIFF and JPG originals. Here are the results of my test.
    • NEF (raw) and PSD XMP sidecar files correctly transferred all of the associated IPTC data.
    • TIFF XMP sidecar files transferred no IPTC data. The sidecar file had all of the IPTC data. Lightroom did not read it.
    • JPG XMP sidecar files transferred the IPTC author field. No other IPTC fields were imported. The sidecar file had all the IPTC data.

    So the sidecar XMP files don't seem to be imported property for TIFF and JPG files, but work fine for PSD and raw files.

    Did you use their "IPTC4XMP Sidecar File"?

    1000

    Even if you did, still weird. It's just metadata, I don't see a problem with copying field data that have the same tag/name. In the words of Jeremy Clarkson, "how hard can it be?"
  • Reply 27 of 70
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,438member
    aussiepaul wrote: »
    It looks like a great opportunity for a third party to step in here. If Apple won't reverse there silly decision I'd like to see someone else have a go. Just no Adobe for me.

    Wouldn't want to call their decision silly, rather advancing to the next thing in photography. You'd rather have them create Aperture v4? If so, you wouldn't have mind their slow progress of taking 4 years for a major new release?

    I say good on them for creating this Photos integration between iOS and OSX. Currently it works, but not fully. In Aperture I can make changes but then they're not synced over to my devices, so I need to manually sync the albums over to my iPhone / iPad. I did try the 'Automatically include 5 most recent albums', but since I create a project with all photos and then create an album with a selection that auto sync thing creates 2 albums on iOS. That sucks, so they're addressing it.

    And many more things will be addressed. What exactly we don't know, but with the opening up of 3rd party plugins many holes can be plugged, possibly faster than Apple might have. I'm somehow certain Apple won't allow me to import a .gpx file so I can match the photos from my DSLR and display them on a map. I hope someone creates a plugin for that as I find it useful; only my iPhone photos are geotagged.

    =========

    My Feature Request for Apples’ new Photos application so far:

    1. Retain sort order when sharing an album filled with photos in the order of my preference
    2. Keep the ability to store all photos locally on my Mac; do not make iCloud the sole storage location as anything in tech can go pear-shaped and I’d like to grab my HDD’s before running out the house in case of fire.
    3. Import .gpx files and match photos on timecode
    4. Full blown app: Lighttable, Books, Order Prints, Smart Albums, Web Page, Web Journal
    5. Custom location for splitting photos from video: I keep the photos on SSD, the videos on HDD
    6. Lift/Stamp


    =====

    More stories on the Photos app:

    Apple will no longer develop Aperture or iPhoto, OS X Yosemite Photos app to serve as replacement
    http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/180972/apple-will-no-longer-develop-aperture-or-iphoto-os-x-yosemite-photos-app-to-serve-as-replacement

    Inside iOS App Extensions: Apple opens up social Share Sheets to third parties
    http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/181239/inside-ios-app-extensions-apple-opens-up-social-share-sheets-to-third-parties

    Adobe 'committed to helping' Aperture customers migrate to Lightroom after Apple announcement
    http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/180974/adobe-committed-to-helping-aperture-customers-migrate-to-lightroom-after-apple-announcement
  • Reply 28 of 70
    thepixeldocthepixeldoc Posts: 2,257member
    aussiepaul wrote: »
    It looks like a great opportunity for a third party to step in here. If Apple won't reverse there silly decision I'd like to see someone else have a go. Just no Adobe for me.


    "Someone" already has.

    A couple of weeks ago I posted this to the end of the original discussion "Adobe 'committed to helping' Aperture customers migrate to Lightroom after Apple announcement":
    The wait is over and the solution is not coming from Adobe or Apple.

    AI - Please allow me to double post across threads, since I think it's easier and essential that Apple users get this info ASAP and give it a try.

    If anyone is still following this thread, I'd like to inform them that an independent developer has developed a migration tool from Aperture to Lightroom.

    It's now in Beta:

    Aperture Exporter

    *** I said this shouldn't take long or be hard at all...1smoking.gif

    ...and as a separate post here:

    http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/181421/aperture-exporter-lightroom-migration-tool-now-in-beta

    *** I also agree with many of the other Aperture users (I personally don't use Aperture though) that you should wait and see what Apple has to offer before converting to anything. If you're the tinkering type, have a go at it after backing up, and then give your feedback to the developer.
  • Reply 29 of 70
    thepixeldocthepixeldoc Posts: 2,257member
    philboogie wrote: »
    Did you use their "IPTC4XMP Sidecar File"?

    1000

    Even if you did, still weird. It's just metadata, I don't see a problem with copying field data that have the same tag/name. In the words of Jeremy Clarkson, "how hard can it be?"

    Thanks for taking the post out of my keyboard :)

    BTW: I said that too :D
  • Reply 30 of 70
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,438member
    ...taking the post out of my keyboard


    LOL
  • Reply 31 of 70
    thepixeldocthepixeldoc Posts: 2,257member
    philboogie wrote: »
    My Feature Request for Apples’ new Photos application so far:

    1. Retain sort order when sharing an album filled with photos in the order of my preference
    2. Keep the ability to store all photos locally on my Mac; do not make iCloud the sole storage location as anything in tech can go pear-shaped and I’d like to grab my HDD’s before running out the house in case of fire.
    3. Import .gpx files and match photos on timecode
    4. Full blown app: Lighttable, Books, Order Prints, Smart Albums, Web Page, Web Journal
    5. Custom location for splitting photos from video: I keep the photos on SSD, the videos on HDD
    6. Lift/Stamp

    1. Absolutely!
    2. Absolutely and non-debatable!
    3. In the portion that I chopped off, you mentioned plugin... which I think would be perfect for this kind of function. Many (most?) newer cameras come with GPS. Depending on what you do, it's better to take a few shots and turn it off for better battery life on the camera. Then "Lift/Stamp the rest at import time.
    4. I'm going to say "no" to this. I think everything you stated is better served with extensions and plugins... other than maybe "light Table"... and I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that. LT means many things depending on the software being used.
    5. I agree.. but would take it a step further: pictures and videos (originals) can live anywhere, whether cloud, HDD, SDD, Flickr, SmugMug, Google Drive (egads!), OneDrive (boooo!!!) or DropBox (Apple should have bought them :)) Visual editing is done within the Library and on device optimized proxis. Um yes... period.
    6. No serious cataloging utility should be without it(!)

    I'm a "dyed-in-the-wool"*** minimalist. I want cameras and software to do what they do best, and leave the other things to developers that have a vested interest. Let Flickr, Pinterest, SmugMug make utilities (extensions or plugins) that are tailored to making their services work. Let Instagram, SnapChat, Google Snapseed, VSCO do filters, borders, etc... and SquareSpace, WordPress, Joomla, PicDrop develop front-ends to their website portfolios.

    The above was software, but the same goes for cameras. Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji and all the rest make horrible GUI's to their cameras coupled with unnecessary features that are better left to software. Taking a minimalist approach, they could create App Extensions or plugins to facilitate "scene" functions in their cameras. Because the truth is, every picture taken with any camera starts out as a RAW chip sensor read of the "Light Triangle". The only "newbie" functions on cameras that should be there are "program shooting modes" that adjust ISO, shutter and aperture for a given scene. The tagged as such RAW file is then later interpreted in the software to eek out every last possibility and quality out of a given pixel and picture. Leave "pixel-bending" to the pros.

    I still believe that only Apple will be able to move us forward with their approach to photos, including processing, cataloging, search/find and backup. Every other software dev and camera maker is stuck in the 90's with their approach to all of those absolute necessary areas of photography for consumer, novice , enthusiast or pro. Apple can do for photos and memories what they did for music... but even better. They may also have to adjust the way they approach this task and break things including their own philosophies to make this happen. But that's what I expect from an innovator... just sayin'...:smokey:

    *** And before any of that happens I sure hope I haven't "died-in-the-wool" first!
  • Reply 32 of 70
    thepixeldocthepixeldoc Posts: 2,257member
    Regarding camera manufacturer's software:

    I recently tested the new Nikon NX-D software for a client........... Oh! My! F****ING! GAWD!.... is the first, middle, and last thing I muttered out loud before deleting that trash!

    One of the absolute worst software "ports" I have seen in years. It makes X10 windowed Java programs look fantastic in comparison. I still can't get the visions of that monstrosity out of my head... really...:no:
  • Reply 33 of 70
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,249member
    aplnub wrote: »
    If Lightroom had Apertures Auto Enhance (very best I've seen), White Balance (skin tone option), non-destructive workflow, color overlays when brushing, etc this would be a lot easier to swallow.

    Lr's lens correction and water marking does help.

    Check out DXO if you haven't already. http://www.dxo.com/intl/photography/dxo-optics-pro/photo-software
  • Reply 34 of 70
    bernaberna Posts: 3member

    I see some people here bashing Adobe, but I've got to say that, as a professional photographer, I've tried both iPhoto and Aperture and thought they were a nightmare.

     

    iPhoto because it has a terrible file management system, locking all your photos into a single database file. If that file gets corrupted, it's bye bye. 

     

    Aperture because the amount of bugs were terrible to deal with. It would freeze, it would crash. Also, I had Aperture delete actual photos from my hard drive permanently, because of its complicated file management options. 

     

    Lightroom is the most reliable piece of software for handling my photos by a large margin, totally stable and very clear when it comes to deleting photos from the Lightroom catalog versus the actual photo on the hard drive. Not to mention it has probably the best algorithms in the market for photo adjustments.

     

    If anything, it's Apple software I'm worried about when it comes to photography software.

  • Reply 35 of 70
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,249member
    philboogie wrote: »
    Wouldn't want to call their decision silly, rather advancing to the next thing in photography. You'd rather have them create Aperture v4? If so, you wouldn't have mind their slow progress of taking 4 years for a major new release?

    I say good on them for creating this Photos integration between iOS and OSX. Currently it works, but not fully. In Aperture I can make changes but then they're not synced over to my devices, so I need to manually sync the albums over to my iPhone / iPad. I did try the 'Automatically include 5 most recent albums', but since I create a project with all photos and then create an album with a selection that auto sync thing creates 2 albums on iOS. That sucks, so they're addressing it.

    And many more things will be addressed. What exactly we don't know, but with the opening up of 3rd party plugins many holes can be plugged, possibly faster than Apple might have. I'm somehow certain Apple won't allow me to import a .gpx file so I can match the photos from my DSLR and display them on a map. I hope someone creates a plugin for that as I find it useful; only my iPhone photos are geotagged.

    =========

    My Feature Request for Apples’ new Photos application so far:

    1. Retain sort order when sharing an album filled with photos in the order of my preference
    2. Keep the ability to store all photos locally on my Mac; do not make iCloud the sole storage location as anything in tech can go pear-shaped and I’d like to grab my HDD’s before running out the house in case of fire.
    3. Import .gpx files and match photos on timecode
    4. Full blown app: Lighttable, Books, Order Prints, Smart Albums, Web Page, Web Journal
    5. Custom location for splitting photos from video: I keep the photos on SSD, the videos on HDD
    6. Lift/Stamp



    All great suggestions. Currently I am playing around with DXO's software and so far I am very impressed (I love the one click lens corrections for all my lenses). if this, Photomatix and Photoshop integrate seamlessly into Photo along with your suggestions, it might be all that is required as the filesystem. I just don't like Lightroom's file management approach.

    If you haven't tried it yet, DXO provides all the specific lens corrections imaginable and for me was THE missing link in Aperture but the integration is extremely limited from what I can ascertain so far in tests. It has 'Export to Application' on a per image basis but no batch or default type set up I have yet found. The other snag, I just wrote to their support team about, is it seems to have no way to set cache / scratch destinations. With a new Mac Pro and the limited space on the internal SSD I have to set all such data use to my RAID 0 on Thunderbolt or else I see the space left on the internal diminish (albeit temporarily) very fast and my safety warning software is screaming I have less that 15% space left on it.

    I don't know about you but my requirements really revolve around (a) the Library system (as in an easily searched, sortable storage system and (b) Sophisticated lens correction ( distortion correction mainly) and lastly (c) RAW manipulation for HDR corrections / selections (I already use the plug in for Aperture from Photomatix). If anything beyond those elements are required, I use Photoshop (CS6 in my case, I am not yet cloud based with Adobe and am a little hesitant, these days I use Photoshop and that's it although Muse tempts me, I wish that were stand alone).
  • Reply 36 of 70
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,438member
    3. In the portion that I chopped off, you mentioned plugin... which I think would be perfect for this kind of function. Many (most?) newer cameras come with GPS. Depending on what you do, it's better to take a few shots and turn it off for better battery life on the camera. Then "Lift/Stamp the rest at import time.


    Usually the point-n-shoot come with GPS but not the DSLR types. I therefore take my Garmin with me, setting the time on the camera to match the GPS unit. After importing the photos I can import the .gpx file and, well, you get the picture.

    4. I'm going to say "no" to this. I think everything you stated is better served with extensions and plugins... other than maybe "light Table"... and I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that. LT means many things depending on the software being used.

    Good point; that can also be covered by plug-ins. And even though Apple is great at refining and making the software design slick, I bet developers dedicated to just a single option can outdo Apple here, especially on Books.

    As for the Light Table, I can understand why you would exactly know what I mean since you don't use Aperture (though you are fully up to speed on its capabilities)

    Here's a quote from Apple's site:

    Using Aperture’s light table feature, the photographers could look at images side-by-side to compare tests and finals even though they were in separate directories. The photographers also used Aperture’s processing features for color correcting RAW files and for providing soft proofs for each lighting setup to the retouchers and the editors.

    I use it to create a collage. It's fun to lay out photos and put smaller sized next to larger ones. Overlap them. See which photos haven't been put on the Light Table yet. Print as .pdf, send to Print House. A pity we can't rotate the photos. Oh well.

    http://documentation.apple.com/en/aperture/usermanual/index.html#chapter=23&section=0&tasks=true
    http://photo.rwboyer.com/2010/02/03/aperture-light-tables-revisited/
    1000


    I still believe that only Apple will be able to move us forward with their approach to photos, including processing, cataloging, search/find and backup. Every other software dev and camera maker is stuck in the 90's with their approach to all of those absolute necessary areas of photography for consumer, novice , enthusiast or pro. Apple can do for photos and memories what they did for music... but even better.

    Well put! Actually the whole post, just wanted to highlight this bit.

    OT:
    LOL on this site, a user sig: "I have a photographic memory but never got it developed"

    As to your later post on that new software from Nikon, I don't think they should even try to develop desktop software. Stick to what you know best, Nikon. The UI on your cameras is already bad as it is, don't make people even more frustrated after a shoot.

    As for the Photos software, read this article from Jochen H. Schmidt for those interested. Article name is "Photos in Moments of Time and Place"

    In order to get some folks interested I simply paste a graph. Graphs sometimes make people interested hehe

    1000


    But screen dumps may work even better:

    1000
  • Reply 37 of 70
    jlanddjlandd Posts: 873member
    yoyo2222 wrote: »
    Very cute but let's see. I've tested iMovie 6 (HD) on Yosemite beta and it works fine. iMovie 6 was released in Jan. '06 when we were still using OS X 10.4. Don't panic.

    Don't know how you're gleaning panic from my post, but whatever...

    The iMovie situation is obviously totally different as it has never been end of lifed. It lacks Apple announcing ending development of a long touted as professional proprietary product and their planning to offer a general purpose free replacement which will import its libraries. A more accurate comparison would be FCP, where Apple has been actively directing users toward FCPX. And though it boots in the latest beta, FCP users are not counting on it being functional in the not so distant future, going by video editor forums.
  • Reply 38 of 70
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,249member
    jlandd wrote: »
    Don't know how you're gleaning panic from my post, but whatever...

    The iMovie situation is obviously totally different as it has never been end of lifed. It lacks Apple announcing ending development of a long touted as professional proprietary product and their planning to offer a general purpose free replacement which will import its libraries. A more accurate comparison would be FCP, where Apple has been actively directing users toward FCPX. And though it boots in the latest beta, FCP users are not counting on it being functional in the not so distant future, going by video editor forums.

    I am not sure what there is in Aperture to break as OS X moves forward it's working fine in Yosemite for me. Final Cut 7 partially works but I agree it is already failing in Mavericks and Yosemite but it is a far more complex animal than Aperture. That said, hopefully Photo will be more than many expect.
  • Reply 39 of 70
    mbmcavoymbmcavoy Posts: 157member
    My wife is a photographer/blogger who depends on me for a lot of the "tech support" aspects. She has been using Aperture with our old Sony A100 DSLR, with Pixelmator when she needs a little more editing capability. (I'd like to do more photography myself, but have next to no time.)

    She just upgraded to a Sony A77ii (so far, fantastic), but there was nearly a showstopper. Aperture does not support the RAW image format from this camera! As development is stopping, it probably won't get it in an update. Sony does have a RAW conversion app, but from what I have read it is clunky, and the result is worse then just shooting JPEG in-camera. RAW provides a lot of benefits when editing that get lost as well.

    Last week I set her up with the trial of Lightroom and Photoshop. To be honest, I was impressed with how easy it was to install (although not app-store easy), and within a few minutes of usage had discovered some pretty useful features that I don't think Aperture has. She seems to have taken to Lightroom very well, and is using it for her new work. Photoshop will have a steeper learning curve, though.

    Frankly, the CC business model doesn't bother me too much. The full apps were always so expensive to buy outright. Long term this will be similar cost, sure, but for a pro user, the cost is justified. An occasional or curious user can pay for a month at a time. My only real complaint is that the licensing doesn't cover household scenarios - the license is only for my wife, even though it can be installed on multiple machines (iPad, too)

    For now, her previous photos are still in Aperture, but this guide will probably be helpful.
  • Reply 40 of 70
    z3r0z3r0 Posts: 230member

    Some alternatives for those who want to own their software:

     

    Commercial

     

    Open Source

Sign In or Register to comment.