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

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 70
    thepixeldocthepixeldoc Posts: 2,257member
    berna wrote: »
    Yes, this is true technically, and I'm aware that you can right-click the package to view the stored photos. I'm not sure though whether or not packages can get corrupted and prevent access to the content wrapped in it. One thing is certain though, managing your photos hidden under a package is sub-optimal. This is why I love Lightroom, it creates it's own photo catalog, but it stores your photo files in a regular folder structure, normally accessible wherever you choose to place them.
    I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill. There's nothing particularly exciting about a Package. It's just a neat way of storing lots of data without having files and folders sprawled over the place; think of it like a smart folder. Packages are clever in that you can open an application by 'opening' the Package. There's no more chance of not being able to open a Package than there is a folder. Once you've 'unzipped' the Package, it's just a regular folder hierarchy, the same as Lightroom. A Package is not really an application; it may contain an application, though.

    If you really want to see all your photos in iPhoto presented in a traditional folder hierarchy, the easiest way would probably be to Reveal in Finder one photo, then work to the top of the folder hierarchy in Finder and make an alias of that folder in the Sidebar. Voila; there's your 20th century folder structure. I wouldn't recommend it, because if you start moving photos around from the Finder, you can easily get confused with what's there and what isn't in iPhoto.

    It doesn't sound as though you use iPhoto, but if I were you, I would wait for Photos to come out next year and see how you get on with it. The rumour is that it will be more of a cross between Aperture and iPhoto with much more extensibility, so there's a good chance that it would meet your overly-demanding needs.

    Good post.

    I'm a huge fan of obfuscating and eventually doing away with the 20th century folder structure everywhere, and putting in it's place "faux" AKA Smart folders and saved searches that access data far more organically. Organically-speaking, OSX and iOS does this rather well now with underlying Finder/Springboard code pushing most often accessed data to the SSD if your using a Fusion drive setup, and to the top of the list in iOS. IMHO Fusion Drive came to be only as a middle-ware solution to the problem of getting to data fast, and the fact that it appears ZFS+ has been stalled or is in a coma of sorts, and HDDs aren't going away for a while due to their inexpensive price/GB.

    People that are against this in most cases are well organized and have developed good computing habits for quite a long time; hence their fear of not actually "seeing" their time-honored structure in order to archive and later find their data.

    Reality for most (90%) of my consumer clients, is that they can't find anything and that they often have multiple duplicates scattered around their primary hard drive wasting space, thinking those are safe backups (some folks really do believe that!). A quick look into someone's Mail program shows the same scattered approach (if any) to filing; eventually including music, pictures, downloads, etc. etc.

    When I've had the opportunity to discuss filing and structures, and what "most" people would love to have... it's something similar to Google, but for their data. When I show them how easy it is (and that it works if they're coming from the indexing world of Windows) with Spotlight, they start to see the light. Show them how to create Smart Folders, Spotlight comments, and assorted "quick find" tricks... they actually become excited about using search and meta rather than the drudgery of trying to sift through years of documents via "drill-down". let alone get the "housekeeping" chores done. I often ask them what they think it would be like if folder drill-down was how they used Google (like Yahoo, Excite and AltaVista in the day), and they of course say it would be a serious PITA.

    "So why not embrace "meta search" and the saving of searches for your own data?", I ask. Fear. And. Uncertainty. That's all I get in response.

    But that response will change shortly. Yosemite is going to put Spotlight front and center in all of our lives in a few short weeks time and the Cloud.. the real one this time... will be turned on. This will give Apple and it's users time to get the kinks out... because I think Apple will without a doubt sometime in the next few years, be the first to pull people out of the last millennium and get the majority of their users to embrace the Cloud willingly and delightfully, and do away with folders as we know them today. (edited for clarity)

    A modern... and might I add efficient and safe... local AND off-site Cloud backup... in addition to the files we NEED on our devices for fast access. What could be sweeter than that?

    I don't believe I'm only dreaming here, and besides being a reality in the near future to get used to with Yosemite... I think it's the only logical way forward for Apple themselves to stay green and deliver device independent data in the Cloud. I only hope that they got it working at 95% in their labs, and that normal consumers don't get turned off before they get turned on to what kind of luxury this is going to be if it works out of the box... preferably at 100%(!) Reality says nothing is perfect... so we'll just have to wait and see.
  • Reply 62 of 70
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,438member

    I'm sticking to my original opinion that these "modules" should be created separately as apps/extensions/plugins to Photos... so good news for "moi" if we're keeping track of predictions and wild-eyed, pulled-out-of-your-fanny-pack guesses tally :)

    Lol. And I agree; 3rd party plugins will probably turn out for the better as developers can give it their full attention as opposed to Apple who need to do the whole package.
  • Reply 63 of 70
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,438member
    berna wrote: »

    Yes, this is true technically, and I'm aware that you can right-click the package to view the stored photos. I'm not sure though whether or not packages can get corrupted and prevent access to the content wrapped in it. One thing is certain though, managing your photos hidden under a package is sub-optimal. This is why I love Lightroom, it creates it's own photo catalog, but it stores your photo files in a regular folder structure, normally accessible wherever you choose to place them.

    Aperture can be used as a referenced library, giving you the ability to store your photos anywhere you like, all sorted in the Finder, and managed through the software. Just like LR. iPhoto I wouldn't use, it's clunky and not very powerful. Shouldn't even be compared to LR, not that you were doing that.

    You can even mix your preference in Aperture. This is what I do: keep my photos in a managed library, all stored on SSD, and managing my videos in the Finder, on HDD, all referenced in Aperture. It's a very versatile application, still available in the App Store and most certainly not EOL'd. And for the price it's a steal.
  • Reply 64 of 70
    mbmcavoymbmcavoy Posts: 157member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post





    I see, new model. Well, Apple is always taking their time releasing RAW compatibility. I've read that Adobe does this 'in a more timely fashion'.



    Indeed, they do need to reeves engineer it. And since the camera manufactures are the ones with their roots in this type of software, I would rather trust my RAW software from them then Apple. But since these manufactures are so bad at designing software I take my chances with Apple, and not the likes of Nikon.

      But seeing RAW converted photos from Apple and Nikon side by side, there is a noticeable difference. And not in favour of Apple.



    I like Ken for preferring jpg in that respect. Also, because he thinks people shouldn't be messing around with a photo after they're shot. Just do the photography thing before hitting the shutter button, and I tend to agree.

     

    Welp, I just saw notification for "Digital Camera RAW Compatibility Update 5.06", which adds the Sony A77ii. (Installed but not tested.) So I guess Apple is actually respectably fast after all!

     

    May be somewhat moot, as when I mentioned it to my wife, she said that she's really liking Lightroom, and thinks it's worth paying for.

     

    I haven't personally done any real editing, and have not done technical format/software comparisons myself. My understanding is that they are basically the data read off the sensor; losslessly compressed, and and contain wider dynamic range and greater bit depth than a jpeg. I'm not the one doing the work either!

     

    I used to have the mindset that "real" photographers do it all in-camera, and use filters if they want effects. But I have since seen how even small adjustments can really make a photo pop, and realize that an artist should use whatever tools achieve the vision.

  • Reply 65 of 70
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,438member
    mbmcavoy wrote: »
    Welp, I just saw notification for "Digital Camera RAW Compatibility Update 5.06", which adds the Sony A77ii. (Installed but not tested.) So I guess Apple is actually respectably fast after all!

    Pffew.
    May be somewhat moot, as when I mentioned it to my wife, she said that she's really liking Lightroom, and thinks it's worth paying for.

    No doubt. Adobe has a long history in creating software, this is their thing. The LR product stands on its own.
    I haven't personally done any real editing, and have not done technical format/software comparisons myself. My understanding is that they are basically the data read off the sensor; losslessly compressed, and and contain wider dynamic range and greater bit depth than a jpeg. I'm not the one doing the work either!

    RAW has indeed many advantages over .jpg Changing the WB after the fact comes to mind. Also, .jpg is 8 bit. And, well, you get the picture.
    I used to have the mindset that "real" photographers do it all in-camera, and use filters if they want effects. But I have since seen how even small adjustments can really make a photo pop, and realize that an artist should use whatever tools achieve the vision.

    That's a very good point.


    Some sites that might be of use to some. I'm thinking [@]digitalclips[/@], [@]ThePixelDoc[/@] here.

    http://aperturevslightroom.com June 2014
    Aperture Vs. Lightroom: Which Is Right for You? (pcmag), Aug 2013
    Colour rendition (lifeafterphotoshop)

    1000


    Other AI threads on the topic of photos:

    http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/181684/adobe-publishes-how-to-guide-for-migrating-from-apples-aperture-to-lightroom

    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 66 of 70
    thepixeldocthepixeldoc Posts: 2,257member
    [@]PhilBoogie[/@]

    Thanks for the tip above(!) It definitely comes at a good time since I'm currently testing Camera One Pro, and I concur with Rod Lawton that LR's noise patterns and highlight recovery leave much to be desired.

    I was actually tipped off a few weeks ago by a post at Fstoppers to give COP a serious look, since I do a lot of post-production for portrait/fashion/lifestyle photogs, and the noise-reduction and skin-tone renditions from COP are absolutely stunning from what I can see in some random tests here. I haven't pulled the trigger and purchased just yet due to time constraints, knowing LR in my sleep, and handing over finished libraries to my clients. However, I have a big wedding that I'll be doing the post-prod. for a client of mine where I'm dearly thinking, "this is the project" to put COP to the ultimate test, because I'll be completely responsible this time out for the library and delivering only TIFs.***

    Weddings are perfect for this, because you have so many pictures (1600+) that cover the entire gamut of photography. From architecture, food, indoors/outdoors, flash, ND filters, portraits, still-lifes, group shots, difficult to light and properly correct under/over exposure shots regarding highlights and shadows (tux and gown)... plus from different cameras and lens combinations... plus due to the amount of shots, you have to do this all FAST to make a profit and deliver in a respectable time frame. Right up the Doc's alley :)

    *** Over the last few months I've been picking and choosing clients that want a "one-stop" shop for post production, whether video or photo. The demands of the tech side and software, keeping it all up to date with "color looks", strategic and guaranteed backup strategies, and advanced learning curves to do and be everything... is starting to take away from the creative process for many of my clients. Big name shooters have known this for a long time and have farmed out "the work" in creating a final product equaling their vision. It's now trickled down to mid and even small studios.

    Because this post is already quite long, there are a number of added reasons why this is working out quite well for all involved, (ultimate in discretion being one of them!!!). It's the same biz-plan I used in the 80"s and 90's growing my graphic design (DTP) services and consultancy that I killed about a year ago. I love starting over... kind of.. :smokey:
  • Reply 67 of 70
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,438member
    ^ post

    Ha! Changing profession a bit. I know a thing or two about that, though I've been much more radical. Anyway, I'm just a hobbyist and not a photographer. Never mind getting paid for it. Do like to read your posts, so, please, carry on.

    Oh, to stay on topic; why is it that so many people don't like to do weddings? I think they're great to do, exactly because of the issues you write about. Alas, I've only done a few. Strangely enough I now have done a few funerals. Weird how things 'evolve' but the surviving relatives are 'happy' with the photos.
  • Reply 68 of 70
    thepixeldocthepixeldoc Posts: 2,257member
    Deleted: I decided that this was too far off-topic and belonged in a PM instead.
  • Reply 69 of 70
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,438member
    ^ post

    That was a fun read! Can'r really say much in response but did want you to know it didn't go unread.

    So what happened to Germany? Nothing came of it with that au pair girl?

    Yeah, funerals are weird to photograph. It's a bit like voyeurism, one really needs to be discreet about it. Think zoom lens here. And I have someone mention me before they start, so it's explained to everyone that it's really for those family members abroad and couldn't get a flight that quickly.

    Anyhoo, you didn't ask for that.

    Weddings. Ok, it may not be a challenge, but I like the fact that everyone is smiling, dressed up and are having a good time. And the versatility in ones approach to photographing it all.
  • Reply 70 of 70
    learn photo editing in photoshop Sign up for the free copy !!!
    http://www.tutorialphotoediting.com/
Sign In or Register to comment.