Sorry Adobe, I will always look elsewhere. I refuse to support a company that creates software with such a poor user experience. Not to mention, also buying companies whose software has so many security flaws and poor performance. Thank you for bringing the ‘windows’ experience to the web via flash! Every day, I am reminded by the constant deluge of flash videos how much I dislike your company. I refuse to support companies that operate in this manner.
I will wait and see what Apple creates to replace their current set of applications for photos. I have faith that they will create a better product. If they don’t, I have Aperture to use for the time being. It works fine for me.
I am sorry to say that LR is still clunky. It's UI is all over the place, and don't even get me started about its library tools. I am a pro retoucher and digital studio manager, so it's not like I am an Adobe hater. I generally love their software and use it all day. However, LR I don't like. I think Aperture is much better, but it was really abandoned several years back by Apple. The discontinuation announcement this year was just a belated acknowledgement of that fact. As much as I like Aperture, it's feature set has gotten way behind LR. I am waiting to see what the new Photos app will look like before I make a final decision on how to move forward. I'm getting to the point where Bridge seems like a pretty good option, or maybe Capture One Pro.
I was all in with Aperture. I forced myself to choose another program to use after Apple announced they were dropping Aperture from active development. After all, I could not rely on Apple for my pro photography needs any longer after pulling that stunt. I tried C1, DXO, and LR. All three have pluses but LR was the best fit for me. I have really come to enjoy using the program and I only really miss two things from Aperture.
Aperture's "Auto Enhance" feature.
The ability to white balance using skin tones.
Would I like to see LR's interface tweaked a bit? Yes.
Would I like to Adobe to make handling of files a bit easier? Yes.
Am I more happy with LR or Aperture? LR
Do I like the subscription model? Yes! I thought I would never say that but for $10 a month you always have the latest version.
LR is more mature and definitely more modern and fits me well.
I don't really understand the outrage over Abode's subscription model. Photoshop + Lightroom is about £8 a month
Possibly not the money versus the 'knowledge' of not 'owning' the software. This £8 a month is being perceived as expensive when the boxed version is about the same as to subscribe for one year. Understandable POV.
I spent quite a while testing out the beta Photo in iCloud and found some interesting stuff over the weekend.
It doesn't use up additional space on the boot volume even if the data is on an external drive. It isn't uploading images by using the usual share option, you launch the app from within the selection of apps on the iCloud and then select 'Upload.
1) thanks for doing the work, appreciated.
2) That is indeed how I understood it from various forums and articles. But alas, I don't see an UPLOAD button on iCloud.com/photos
You can select any source and one is a new 'Media' icon which presents both iPhoto and Aperture Libraries. I have many of the latter and there is no way to select a different one from this Media icon, however it defaults to whatever Library you have open. I didn't try to see if i could open by navigation to a Library directly (having only just thought of that! lol).
Again, if I had a way to upload I could try this out myself, so thank you for posting. Perhaps it's an option to do the following:
In the Mac Finder, right-click an Aperture lib and select Show Content. Add this folder to the Finder sidebar (Cmd-Ctrl-T) and see if you can get to that folder when trying to upload from a browser
1. Images are not removed if the original source is off line.
2. The biggest surprise was it managed to geo tag hundreds of RAW images taken on a Canon 70D that has no GPS!
3. Note they are not retained as RAW sadly, they are converted to jpeg, (by the sending Mac I think, not the server end.)
1. Good to know
2. Does it display an Apple Maps like page on iCloud?
3. I would presume the conversion is done locally in order to limit the amount of data to upload. This could mean there simply is no RAW support. That'll pee off the pros.
How it geo tags my non GPS tagged images is a mystery to me. I can only guess that Photo is using images taken on iPhone 5s at the same time as its basis for the guessing. If it wasn't that I am at a loss to know how it did it. It was quite a shock to see a whole bunch of my Canon's pictures grouped by what glacier (by name) I was photographing. This is a weird, because if it was related to iPhone GPS data it is a good job I was using the iPhone at the same location as my camera! So far there are no settings / options I have found relating to this.
Aha. This geo tagging is the same within Aperture:
And for that reason I set the clock on my cameras to the time my iPhone is displaying, to the second
I am sorry to say that LR is still clunky. It's UI is all over the place, and don't even get me started about its library tools. I am a pro retoucher and digital studio manager, so it's not like I am an Adobe hater. I generally love their software and use it all day. However, LR I don't like. I think Aperture is much better, but it was really abandoned several years back by Apple. The discontinuation announcement this year was just a belated acknowledgement of that fact. As much as I like Aperture, it's feature set has gotten way behind LR. I am waiting to see what the new Photos app will look like before I make a final decision on how to move forward. I'm getting to the point where Bridge seems like a pretty good option, or maybe Capture One Pro.
Well, that's a bummer. I really would like to keep the 'Aperture experience' but guess I should not make any hasty decisions.
I think Bridge is more of a viewer/metadata writer. Capture One is kinda cool, but not the right tool if you're a pro. Fortunately Aperture won't stop working 'early 2015' so no worries there, but I understand your wish for new features.
2) That is indeed how I understood it from various forums and articles. But alas, I don't see an UPLOAD button on iCloud.com/photos
Maybe it is US developer accounts only at the moment for uploads. It is here on mine. Have you tried the URL beta.icloud.com?
The GPS ... I never even noticed that 'use iPhone' option before! Cheaper than buying a GPS for my Canons! Thanks for the time tip, I'd never have thought of that either!
No mapping option anywhere I can see yet. I will let you know if I find any.
Images are full resolution as jepgs so no size reduction, just no longer RAW.
Sharing set up and Album creation still taken care of by iPhoto or Aperture so far. I assume that will either shift totally or be added to Photo over time.
Possibly not the money versus the 'knowledge' of not 'owning' the software. This £8 a month is being perceived as expensive when the boxed version is about the same as to subscribe for one year. Understandable POV.
The boxed version of Lightroom on itself is about the same as a 12-month subscription. Lightroom + Photoshop used to cost significantly more.
Possibly not the money versus the 'knowledge' of not 'owning' the software. This £8 a month is being perceived as expensive when the boxed version is about the same as to subscribe for one year. Understandable POV.
"the boxed version is about the same as to subscribe for one year" which means that, unless you get sufficient feature increases to justify "buying a new box every year", which was clearly never true, the subscription model is more expensive. If like many small businesses, you renew your software somewhere between every three and every eight years, the subscription model becomes unbelievably more expensive. This is not a matter of "perception", it's end-of-the-year cost projections.
Note, if "unless you get sufficient feature increases to justify "buying a new box every year" was true, Adobe would not have created their sub model, since they'd be losing money.
The boxed version of Lightroom on itself is about the same as a 12-month subscription. Lightroom + Photoshop used to cost significantly more.
It probably depends on what software you need, and how often you need to update, anyway. It's perfectly possible that you have better value for money with the new system, while we don't.
The GPS ... I never even noticed that 'use iPhone' option before! Cheaper than buying a GPS for my Canons! Thanks for the time tip, I'd never have thought of that either!
The boxed version of Lightroom on itself is about the same as a 12-month subscription. Lightroom + Photoshop used to cost significantly more.
So in a few years that adds up. I realize it is always up to date but then again we are all getting used to most software being updated for free for quite a while. None of these levels of costs are an issue for someone making money from clients with the software but it is a challenge for hobbyists and enthusiasts who just like to plash out on good software once in a while.
So if I understand this correctly, if we set the time on a Canon or Nikon to the same as the iPhone's time zone, then always take at least one iPhone picture with every set of photographs in a shoot on the pro gear and put them all in the same Aperture Library we are golden? I was this close to buying an add on GPS!
"the boxed version is about the same as to subscribe for one year" which means that, unless you get sufficient feature increases to justify "buying a new box every year", which was clearly never true, the subscription model is more expensive. If like many small businesses, you renew your software somewhere between every three and every eight years, the subscription model becomes unbelievably more expensive. This is not a matter of "perception", it's end-of-the-year cost projections.
Note, if "unless you get sufficient feature increases to justify "buying a new box every year" was true, Adobe would not have created their sub model, since they'd be losing money.
Your Note is very true indeed. It is simply a form of extortion way of maintaining a very high cost of the software without making it obvious.
Maybe it is US developer accounts only at the moment for uploads. It is here on mine. Have you tried the URL beta.icloud.com?
I may have been in err here; I have enabled iCloud Photos on my iPhone, but since it didn't do what I expected of it I disabled it again (because, amongst others, I couldn't easily sync over all my projects I keep on my iPhone and iPad to iCloud)
The GPS ... I never even noticed that 'use iPhone' option before! Cheaper than buying a GPS for my Canons!
I use my Garmin GPS when travelling and photographing: you can import the .gpx file from the device (any device that records in the .gpx format) and drop one photo on that track; all other photos will be added on the track by their timecode. Make sure you're zoomed in enough for it to work, it took me a while to figure that one out. Aperture has a couple of nice features, some I get from www.apertureexpert, nee, https://thephotosexpert.com nowadays (since Apple announced the discontinuation)
No mapping option anywhere I can see yet. I will let you know if I find any.
Images are full resolution as jepgs so no size reduction, just no longer RAW.
Sharing set up and Album creation still taken care of by iPhoto or Aperture so far. I assume that will either shift totally or be added to Photo over time.
1. Thanks for the capture with the UPLOAD button; I'll re-enable iCloud Photos on my iPhone and give it another shot.
2. The lack of RAW is going to, well, you know...then again, it's still in Beta
3. I would assume current shared albums simply move over to iCloud Photos. But if they don't automatically move albums currently synced with iTunes over to iCloud Photos it would be a shame. I have a rather large amount of albums as I always buy the largest capacity iPhone and iPad.
The boxed version of Lightroom on itself is about the same as a 12-month subscription. Lightroom + Photoshop used to cost significantly more.
I agree, and that was my point. Other might be ok with it, and the comments already made in this thread are valid for that reason, in my opinion (reminds me of that judge from The Good Wife)
I use my Garmin GPS when travelling and photographing: you can import the .gpx file from the device (any device that records in the .gpx format) and drop one photo on that track; all other photos will be added on the track by their timecode. Make sure you're zoomed in enough for it to work, it took me a while to figure that one out. Aperture has a couple of nice features, some I get from www.apertureexpert, nee, https://thephotosexpert.com nowadays (since Apple announced the discontinuation)
That's a nice web site ... I will be reading all day, glad to have it to read as it is too freakin' cold in Florida to go outside ... it is below 60°F! (yes I know that's not really cold but it's a shock after 90°F!)
Why the effort with the Garmin when the iPhone trick seems easier?
That's a nice web site ... I will be reading all day, glad to have it to read as it is too freakin' cold in Florida to go outside ... it is below 60°F! (yes I know that's not really cold but it's a shock after 90°F!)
That is indeed cold, though not 'as worse' as here in The Netherlands: 7C ? 44F But we still had a great Fall, temperatures never seen this high since the dawn of measuring, we had a great Summer, never seen such a long Summer, we had a great Spring, never before have we experienced to go to the beach because it was so warm midday and we had a very soft Winter, never went below 5C ? 41F
Why the effort with the Garmin when the iPhone trick seems easier?
Force of habit, I guess. Though I must say simply turning on the GPS device and leave it in a bag all day, no need to take a picture with the iPhone and simply importing the .gpx file from the GPS device is actually no hassle at all. Plus the dedicated device is always going to be more precise, for 'splitting-hair-people' like me. I have yet to find the interval at which the iPhone records the GPS coordinates. With my Garmin I can set it to every 1, 5 or 60 seconds.
Force of habit, I guess. Though I must say simply turning on the GPS device and leave it in a bag all day, no need to take a picture with the iPhone and simply importing the .gpx file from the GPS device is actually no hassle at all. Plus the dedicated device is always going to be more precise, for 'splitting-hair-people' like me. I have yet to find the interval at which the iPhone records the GPS coordinates. With my Garmin I can set it to every 1, 5 or 60 seconds.
I only have a cigarette outlet powered Garmin for my Jeep so no such option. So, you can download various different places you have been that day and then add the correct ones to batches of photographs as you travelled around? Does it have like waypoints? Or am I not understanding correctly? What is the Garmin device model, I will look it up on Amazon. The cost of a dedicated third party GPS attachment for a Canon is anywhere from $99 up to $230 for a genuine canon version. They do drain batteries if left on but I assume you just switch them off when not in use.
Edit: Actually I am wrong, they have their own rechargeable batteries. However they all seem to use the hot shoe which I use for an external mic. I wonder if the GPS has to use the hot shoe?
Ah you use time to sync positions of shots with Garmin's data! DUH!
I only have a cigarette outlet powered Garmin for my Jeep so no such option. So, you can download various different places you have been that day and then add the correct ones to batches of photographs as you travelled around? Does it have like waypoints? Or am I not understanding correctly? What is the Garmin device model, I will look it up on Amazon. The cost of a dedicated third party GPS attachment for a Canon is anywhere from $99 up to $230 for a genuine canon version. They do drain batteries if left on but I assume you just switch them off when not in use.
Edit: Actually I am wrong, they have their own rechargeable batteries. However they all seem to use the hot shoe which I use for an external mic. I wonder if the GPS has to use the hot shoe?
Ah you use time to sync positions of shots with Garmin's data! DUH!
Looks like you had a ball here on your own and perhaps no need for me to respond. (lol) However, just for clarification, and hoping you won't need to cudgel your brain I'd like to explain:
I use the Garmin Oregon 550t on my road bike, a total piece of shit device. But that's for another discussion. What it does do well is record the GPS coordinates, and when plugged into a USB port (or use wireless ANT+ stick) one can copy the .gpx file from the device. Simply import into Aperture and drop a photo on the imported track (need to be in Maps View and zoomed in far enough) and voila, all photos in that Project will be added to the GPS track, by timecode.
I set the Garmin to Lock Screen and have the display turn off after a few seconds. Leave it in my camera rug sack and take it out after finishing photographing for the day. The thing takes two penlight batteries (AA) and lasts all day on those (11 hours or something) and works great in a forest as well. My iPhone records piss-poor in the bush bush.
I ran across this web page earlier today, and I was wondering what we could expect in the future from a company that thinks so poorly of IT'S OWN PRODUCT from two years ago. Adobe is pushing this subscription model with hype like this because it doesn't sell itself, and cutting off support for CS6 is the only way they can coerce users to upgrade. Is this supposed to make us trust the future of CC when they have all the control? Sad and scary.
There is an incorrect statement in this article: "A total of 24 new cameras have been added to ACR's list of supported RAW file formats, including the iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus, Canon EOS 7D Mark II, Nikon D750, and Sony ILCE-5100." As far as I know the iPhone 6 and the iPhone 6 plus (I own) cannot produce RAW format photo files, only the compressed JPEG format.
"Whining"? Surely you meant "disagreeing and expressing this with my wallet".
As long as Adobe will push this ridiculous agenda of theirs, I'll be using their former products, or when technically required, the competition. CC will NOT have me as a customer if there is an option.
Whining is uselessly complaining. I'm not doing that, I'm boycotting and saying so. Whining fails, boycotts hurt the bottomline of companies.
As long as customers will have a choice, no breaks for fanboys like you, I guess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inkling
Keep in mind the marvelous advantages the Creative Cloud offers to working professionals.
The old sales model forced software companies to hold back new features. An enhancement might be up and running in January, but it had to be held back until December to give users a good reason to buy the expensive, full-digit upgrade. And a new feature that wasn't quite ready for the release date either shipped buggy or was delayed by a year or more.
The new subscription model encourages software companies to release a continuous series of updates to keep monthly subscribers happy. A new feature ready to go in January comes out in early February. When you're working for yourself, an employer, or paying clients, getting that new feature now rather than up to 18 months in the future easily repays the cost of the subscription.
I might add that I've found another plus. Under the 'heavily loaded with new features' sales model, too much that was new came out at once, so much so that I often didn't have the time to learn some of the new features. With new features now coming out in smaller quantities every two or three months, I have the time to learn them.
It's like the difference between drinking from a garden hose and drinking from a fire hose. I prefer the garden hose.
Comments
Sorry Adobe, I will always look elsewhere. I refuse to support a company that creates software with such a poor user experience. Not to mention, also buying companies whose software has so many security flaws and poor performance. Thank you for bringing the ‘windows’ experience to the web via flash! Every day, I am reminded by the constant deluge of flash videos how much I dislike your company. I refuse to support companies that operate in this manner.
I will wait and see what Apple creates to replace their current set of applications for photos. I have faith that they will create a better product. If they don’t, I have Aperture to use for the time being. It works fine for me.
??
I am sorry to say that LR is still clunky. It's UI is all over the place, and don't even get me started about its library tools. I am a pro retoucher and digital studio manager, so it's not like I am an Adobe hater. I generally love their software and use it all day. However, LR I don't like. I think Aperture is much better, but it was really abandoned several years back by Apple. The discontinuation announcement this year was just a belated acknowledgement of that fact. As much as I like Aperture, it's feature set has gotten way behind LR. I am waiting to see what the new Photos app will look like before I make a final decision on how to move forward. I'm getting to the point where Bridge seems like a pretty good option, or maybe Capture One Pro.
I was all in with Aperture. I forced myself to choose another program to use after Apple announced they were dropping Aperture from active development. After all, I could not rely on Apple for my pro photography needs any longer after pulling that stunt. I tried C1, DXO, and LR. All three have pluses but LR was the best fit for me. I have really come to enjoy using the program and I only really miss two things from Aperture.
Aperture's "Auto Enhance" feature.
The ability to white balance using skin tones.
Would I like to see LR's interface tweaked a bit? Yes.
Would I like to Adobe to make handling of files a bit easier? Yes.
Am I more happy with LR or Aperture? LR
Do I like the subscription model? Yes! I thought I would never say that but for $10 a month you always have the latest version.
LR is more mature and definitely more modern and fits me well.
Possibly not the money versus the 'knowledge' of not 'owning' the software. This £8 a month is being perceived as expensive when the boxed version is about the same as to subscribe for one year. Understandable POV.
1) thanks for doing the work, appreciated.
2) That is indeed how I understood it from various forums and articles. But alas, I don't see an UPLOAD button on iCloud.com/photos
Again, if I had a way to upload I could try this out myself, so thank you for posting. Perhaps it's an option to do the following:
In the Mac Finder, right-click an Aperture lib and select Show Content. Add this folder to the Finder sidebar (Cmd-Ctrl-T) and see if you can get to that folder when trying to upload from a browser
1. Good to know
2. Does it display an Apple Maps like page on iCloud?
3. I would presume the conversion is done locally in order to limit the amount of data to upload. This could mean there simply is no RAW support. That'll pee off the pros.
Aha. This geo tagging is the same within Aperture:
And for that reason I set the clock on my cameras to the time my iPhone is displaying, to the second
Well, that's a bummer. I really would like to keep the 'Aperture experience' but guess I should not make any hasty decisions.
I think Bridge is more of a viewer/metadata writer. Capture One is kinda cool, but not the right tool if you're a pro. Fortunately Aperture won't stop working 'early 2015' so no worries there, but I understand your wish for new features.
Someone on Amazon did buy the v5 box and updated it to 5.6 around Aug 22:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/selling-perpetual-licence-limited-subscription/forum/Fx1PKRYB7OW4ZSK/Tx1LPZVZNTFHFQV/1/ref=cm_cd_ql_tlc_al?_encoding=UTF8&asin=B00CLD7Y4O
I need to buy Aperture before it disappears off the market. Might as well have a decent photo editing application.
Maybe it is US developer accounts only at the moment for uploads. It is here on mine. Have you tried the URL beta.icloud.com?
The GPS ... I never even noticed that 'use iPhone' option before! Cheaper than buying a GPS for my Canons! Thanks for the time tip, I'd never have thought of that either!
No mapping option anywhere I can see yet. I will let you know if I find any.
Images are full resolution as jepgs so no size reduction, just no longer RAW.
Sharing set up and Album creation still taken care of by iPhoto or Aperture so far. I assume that will either shift totally or be added to Photo over time.
Possibly not the money versus the 'knowledge' of not 'owning' the software. This £8 a month is being perceived as expensive when the boxed version is about the same as to subscribe for one year. Understandable POV.
The boxed version of Lightroom on itself is about the same as a 12-month subscription. Lightroom + Photoshop used to cost significantly more.
Possibly not the money versus the 'knowledge' of not 'owning' the software. This £8 a month is being perceived as expensive when the boxed version is about the same as to subscribe for one year. Understandable POV.
"the boxed version is about the same as to subscribe for one year" which means that, unless you get sufficient feature increases to justify "buying a new box every year", which was clearly never true, the subscription model is more expensive. If like many small businesses, you renew your software somewhere between every three and every eight years, the subscription model becomes unbelievably more expensive. This is not a matter of "perception", it's end-of-the-year cost projections.
Note, if "unless you get sufficient feature increases to justify "buying a new box every year" was true, Adobe would not have created their sub model, since they'd be losing money.
The boxed version of Lightroom on itself is about the same as a 12-month subscription. Lightroom + Photoshop used to cost significantly more.
It probably depends on what software you need, and how often you need to update, anyway. It's perfectly possible that you have better value for money with the new system, while we don't.
The GPS ... I never even noticed that 'use iPhone' option before! Cheaper than buying a GPS for my Canons! Thanks for the time tip, I'd never have thought of that either!
Awesome, indeed.
So in a few years that adds up. I realize it is always up to date but then again we are all getting used to most software being updated for free for quite a while. None of these levels of costs are an issue for someone making money from clients with the software but it is a challenge for hobbyists and enthusiasts who just like to plash out on good software once in a while.
So if I understand this correctly, if we set the time on a Canon or Nikon to the same as the iPhone's time zone, then always take at least one iPhone picture with every set of photographs in a shoot on the pro gear and put them all in the same Aperture Library we are golden? I was this close to buying an add on GPS!
Your Note is very true indeed. It is simply a
form of extortionway of maintaining a very high cost of the software without making it obvious.For $79, it's a steal. Also stale, but that's for another discussion lol
I may have been in err here; I have enabled iCloud Photos on my iPhone, but since it didn't do what I expected of it I disabled it again (because, amongst others, I couldn't easily sync over all my projects I keep on my iPhone and iPad to iCloud)
I use my Garmin GPS when travelling and photographing: you can import the .gpx file from the device (any device that records in the .gpx format) and drop one photo on that track; all other photos will be added on the track by their timecode. Make sure you're zoomed in enough for it to work, it took me a while to figure that one out. Aperture has a couple of nice features, some I get from www.apertureexpert, nee, https://thephotosexpert.com nowadays (since Apple announced the discontinuation)
1. Thanks for the capture with the UPLOAD button; I'll re-enable iCloud Photos on my iPhone and give it another shot.
2. The lack of RAW is going to, well, you know...then again, it's still in Beta
3. I would assume current shared albums simply move over to iCloud Photos. But if they don't automatically move albums currently synced with iTunes over to iCloud Photos it would be a shame. I have a rather large amount of albums as I always buy the largest capacity iPhone and iPad.
I agree, and that was my point. Other might be ok with it, and the comments already made in this thread are valid for that reason, in my opinion (reminds me of that judge from The Good Wife)
That's a nice web site ... I will be reading all day, glad to have it to read as it is too freakin' cold in Florida to go outside ... it is below 60°F!
Why the effort with the Garmin when the iPhone trick seems easier?
Just did, and that turned out to be the culprit. Tnx
That is indeed cold, though not 'as worse' as here in The Netherlands: 7C ? 44F But we still had a great Fall, temperatures never seen this high since the dawn of measuring, we had a great Summer, never seen such a long Summer, we had a great Spring, never before have we experienced to go to the beach because it was so warm midday and we had a very soft Winter, never went below 5C ? 41F
Force of habit, I guess. Though I must say simply turning on the GPS device and leave it in a bag all day, no need to take a picture with the iPhone and simply importing the .gpx file from the GPS device is actually no hassle at all. Plus the dedicated device is always going to be more precise, for 'splitting-hair-people' like me. I have yet to find the interval at which the iPhone records the GPS coordinates. With my Garmin I can set it to every 1, 5 or 60 seconds.
I only have a cigarette outlet powered Garmin for my Jeep so no such option. So, you can download various different places you have been that day and then add the correct ones to batches of photographs as you travelled around? Does it have like waypoints? Or am I not understanding correctly? What is the Garmin device model, I will look it up on Amazon. The cost of a dedicated third party GPS attachment for a Canon is anywhere from $99 up to $230 for a genuine canon version. They do drain batteries if left on but I assume you just switch them off when not in use.
Edit: Actually I am wrong, they have their own rechargeable batteries. However they all seem to use the hot shoe which I use for an external mic. I wonder if the GPS has to use the hot shoe?
Ah you use time to sync positions of shots with Garmin's data! DUH!
Looks like you had a ball here on your own and perhaps no need for me to respond. (lol) However, just for clarification, and hoping you won't need to cudgel your brain I'd like to explain:
I use the Garmin Oregon 550t on my road bike, a total piece of shit device. But that's for another discussion. What it does do well is record the GPS coordinates, and when plugged into a USB port (or use wireless ANT+ stick) one can copy the .gpx file from the device. Simply import into Aperture and drop a photo on the imported track (need to be in Maps View and zoomed in far enough) and voila, all photos in that Project will be added to the GPS track, by timecode.
I set the Garmin to Lock Screen and have the display turn off after a few seconds. Leave it in my camera rug sack and take it out after finishing photographing for the day. The thing takes two penlight batteries (AA) and lasts all day on those (11 hours or something) and works great in a forest as well. My iPhone records piss-poor in the bush bush.
"A total of 24 new cameras have been added to ACR's list of supported RAW file formats, including the iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus, Canon EOS 7D Mark II, Nikon D750, and Sony ILCE-5100."
As far as I know the iPhone 6 and the iPhone 6 plus (I own) cannot produce RAW format photo files, only the compressed JPEG format.
There cannot be, and there is no iPhone 6 or 6 plus on the list of supported cameras on Adobe's website: https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/camera-raw.html#supported_cameras
Appleinsider should come up with a correction related to Adobe's added support of RAW file formats.
"Whining"? Surely you meant "disagreeing and expressing this with my wallet".
As long as Adobe will push this ridiculous agenda of theirs, I'll be using their former products, or when technically required, the competition. CC will NOT have me as a customer if there is an option.
Whining is uselessly complaining. I'm not doing that, I'm boycotting and saying so. Whining fails, boycotts hurt the bottomline of companies.
As long as customers will have a choice, no breaks for fanboys like you, I guess.
Keep in mind the marvelous advantages the Creative Cloud offers to working professionals.
The old sales model forced software companies to hold back new features. An enhancement might be up and running in January, but it had to be held back until December to give users a good reason to buy the expensive, full-digit upgrade. And a new feature that wasn't quite ready for the release date either shipped buggy or was delayed by a year or more.
The new subscription model encourages software companies to release a continuous series of updates to keep monthly subscribers happy. A new feature ready to go in January comes out in early February. When you're working for yourself, an employer, or paying clients, getting that new feature now rather than up to 18 months in the future easily repays the cost of the subscription.
I might add that I've found another plus. Under the 'heavily loaded with new features' sales model, too much that was new came out at once, so much so that I often didn't have the time to learn some of the new features. With new features now coming out in smaller quantities every two or three months, I have the time to learn them.
It's like the difference between drinking from a garden hose and drinking from a fire hose. I prefer the garden hose.
Agreed!