Some background to the original question: Elsewhere on the 'net, it's claimed flags and star ratings are lost in the migration to Photos. Are "hidden" flags lost and the (previously hidden) photos uploaded? Are hidden photos sequestered somewhere more private than the cloud? Do users have a choice in this (other than not migrating to Photos ;-)? Inquiring minds want to know.
I'll provide some background to the original question. Elsewhere on the 'net, it's claimed flags and star ratings are lost in the migration to Photos. Are "hidden" flags lost and the (previously hidden) photos uploaded? Are hidden photos sequestered somewhere more private than the cloud? Do users have a choice in this (other than not migrating to Photos ;-)?
From the Verge article I linked in my other post:
The long-running star rating system has given way to favoriting photos with hearts, though existing star ratings are preserved from your old photos and accessible through search.
Looks promising...very clean and modern. I hope I don't have to use iCloud with this though. Apple's current pricing is too high fro a decent amount of storage. Not to mention the less than stellar 2 to 3 Mb upload speed of my Internet connection...I use large photo files!
It’s the Achilles heel of the cloud for a lot of people I think - the upload speed.
Here in the UK, pretty quick internet is becoming common - 16Mb plus, but they are often stuck with 1 or 2 Mb upload, which will put paid to storing photos in the cloud. Fibre is becoming more commonplace, but even then, the bottom tier sometimes has very low upload speeds.
I don't know what the minimum speed would reasonably be required for uploading, say, 10GB, but I would imagine about a 10Mb upload connection at least, and preferably 50Mb plus.
When we all have symmetric 1Gb, no doubt this won't be a problem, until photo and video quality dictates yet another leap in size. What does fibre flake out at?
Some background to the original question: Elsewhere on the 'net, it's claimed flags and star ratings are lost in the migration to Photos. Are "hidden" flags lost and the (previously hidden) photos uploaded? Are hidden photos sequestered somewhere more private than the cloud? Do users have a choice in this (other than not migrating to Photos ;-)? Inquiring minds want to know.
That would be annoying. Perhaps make albums of your flagged and hidden photos before the move from iPhoto, just in case.
It was a genuine compliment. In the past they have scaled the full res photos which made the page unmanageable. I'm glad they did it the right way for a change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike1
Except that the thumbnails don't load unless you go into the forum.
It was a genuine compliment. In the past they have scaled the full res photos which made the page unmanageable. I'm glad they did it the right way for a change.
Looks promising...very clean and modern. I hope I don't have to use iCloud with this though. Apple's current pricing is too high for a decent amount of storage. Not to mention the less than stellar 2 to 3 Mbps upload speed of my Internet connection (download is a decent 45 Mbps) which is not conducive to large photo files!
How large are your photo files? Even a picture at 24 megaxpixels in RAW format would take under a minute to upload on a 2Mbps connection. Your initial upload of a library would take significant time, but so what? Turn on the computer and let it do its thing. Then, as pictures are taken and/or added, they can be uploaded.
Looks promising...very clean and modern. I hope I don't have to use iCloud with this though. Apple's current pricing is too high for a decent amount of storage. Not to mention the less than stellar 2 to 3 Mbps upload speed of my Internet connection (download is a decent 45 Mbps) which is not conducive to large photo files!
How large are your photo files? Even a picture at 24 megaxpixels in RAW format would take under a minute to upload on a 2Mbps connection. Your initial upload of a library would take significant time, but so what? Turn on the computer and let it do its thing. Then, as pictures are taken and/or added, they can be uploaded.
A 10GB photo library would take 7 hours 24 minutes to upload on a 3Mb connection, 11 hours and 7 minutes on a 2Mb connection.
A 50GB library would be 37 hours (3Mb) and 56 hours (2Mb).
With a 50Mb upload, 10GB is 27 minutes, 50GB is 2 hours 13 minutes.
I wonder if Aperture started out as a purchase. This is the usual route for Apple. Final Cut started as Macromedia Key Grip, Shake was bought, EOL'd and turned into Motion, iTunes is from SoundJam etc. They bought a company for some HDR capability on the iPhone:
Some Aperture engineers were noted to have moved into developing frameworks such as Core Image. Perhaps Apple thought Aperture didn't appeal to a wide enough audience (they'll have sales numbers on how many bought it). It would make sense to take parts of it to improve photo management software that would be used by all Mac users if standalone sales were low. If the Core Image frameworks get the editing capability Aperture had then Photos should have the same level of control but these things tend to get simplified in the consumer apps. Photos looks more like a revamped iPhoto.
In this developer release, does the New Photos for OS X co-exist with the current/older iPhoto application?
As for your question, they can coexist together. However once you've migrated your iPhoto library to Photos.app—there will be a separate library for Photos.app—changes you make to either library WILL NOT be propagated to the other library. iPhoto prompts this the first time you reopen it post migration
I upgraded my mid 2012 MBP to 10.10.3 a few hours ago and opened the app. It automatically found my iPhoto library (though you can choose manually). Took like half an hour to migrate my 5GB library.. From the short while I used it, if recommend finalising all sorting of pictures (ie. Faces and/or Albums) in iPhoto as they're now replaced with Moments and Collections like on iOS. I could view previously sorted photos in Faces and Albums but I couldn't find a way to add new ones. Hopefully this will be coming in the second beta. I liked how they used the Apple Watch view to show the faces though. .
Utter rubbish for serious photographers. This is point and shoot software for the selfie dilettantes.
You may be right.
And what's more, there's no other photography software available for the Mac, not one single application other than the upcoming Photos application! So Macs are now useless for serious photographers. Soon, Apple will abandon serious video editors and other creatives. Everyone will move to Windows, the Mac will die and take the iPhone with it, and APPLE WILL BE DOOMED!
In this developer release, does the New Photos for OS X co-exist with the current/older iPhoto application?
As for your question, they can coexist together. However once you've migrated your iPhoto library to Photos.app—there will be a separate library for Photos.app—changes you make to either library WILL NOT be propagated to the other library. iPhoto prompts this the first time you reopen it post migration
I upgraded my mid 2012 MBP to 10.10.3 a few hours ago and opened the app. It automatically found my iPhoto library (though you can choose manually). Took like half an hour to migrate my 5GB library.. From the short while I used it, if recommend finalising all sorting of pictures (ie. Faces and/or Albums) in iPhoto as they're now replaced with Moments and Collections like on iOS. I could view previously sorted photos in Faces and Albums but I couldn't find a way to add new ones. Hopefully this will be coming in the second beta. I liked how they used the Apple Watch view to show the faces though. .
Will albums currently created manually in iPhoto be preserved in Photos, even if they're called something different? I sincerely hope so.
My question is in regard to organization... it "automatically organizes" your photos.... what about manual organization? What about events and albums I already have? This article basically answered zero of my questions.
Utter rubbish for serious photographers. This is point and shoot software for the selfie dilettantes.
"Serious photographers" have been using Lightroom for years, and would never, ever have expected this Photos application to have the same kind of functionality.
Comments
Why wouldn't they be? It’s only a tag.
Why would they? It's just software.
Some background to the original question: Elsewhere on the 'net, it's claimed flags and star ratings are lost in the migration to Photos. Are "hidden" flags lost and the (previously hidden) photos uploaded? Are hidden photos sequestered somewhere more private than the cloud? Do users have a choice in this (other than not migrating to Photos ;-)? Inquiring minds want to know.
Why would they? It's just software.
I'll provide some background to the original question. Elsewhere on the 'net, it's claimed flags and star ratings are lost in the migration to Photos. Are "hidden" flags lost and the (previously hidden) photos uploaded? Are hidden photos sequestered somewhere more private than the cloud? Do users have a choice in this (other than not migrating to Photos ;-)?
From the Verge article I linked in my other post:
Looks promising...very clean and modern. I hope I don't have to use iCloud with this though. Apple's current pricing is too high fro a decent amount of storage. Not to mention the less than stellar 2 to 3 Mb upload speed of my Internet connection...I use large photo files!
It’s the Achilles heel of the cloud for a lot of people I think - the upload speed.
Here in the UK, pretty quick internet is becoming common - 16Mb plus, but they are often stuck with 1 or 2 Mb upload, which will put paid to storing photos in the cloud. Fibre is becoming more commonplace, but even then, the bottom tier sometimes has very low upload speeds.
I don't know what the minimum speed would reasonably be required for uploading, say, 10GB, but I would imagine about a 10Mb upload connection at least, and preferably 50Mb plus.
When we all have symmetric 1Gb, no doubt this won't be a problem, until photo and video quality dictates yet another leap in size. What does fibre flake out at?
Why wouldn't they be? It’s only a tag.
Why would they? It's just software.
Some background to the original question: Elsewhere on the 'net, it's claimed flags and star ratings are lost in the migration to Photos. Are "hidden" flags lost and the (previously hidden) photos uploaded? Are hidden photos sequestered somewhere more private than the cloud? Do users have a choice in this (other than not migrating to Photos ;-)? Inquiring minds want to know.
That would be annoying. Perhaps make albums of your flagged and hidden photos before the move from iPhoto, just in case.
@mstone: no need to be passive aggressive.
Nothing wrong with making a simple suggestion.
It was a genuine compliment. In the past they have scaled the full res photos which made the page unmanageable. I'm glad they did it the right way for a change.
Except that the thumbnails don't load unless you go into the forum.
I wouldn't know. I never visit the main page.
@mstone: no need to be passive aggressive.
Nothing wrong with making a simple suggestion.
It was a genuine compliment. In the past they have scaled the full res photos which made the page unmanageable. I'm glad they did it the right way for a change.
You've just made a passive-aggressive compliment.
It’s unattractive.
Looks promising...very clean and modern. I hope I don't have to use iCloud with this though. Apple's current pricing is too high for a decent amount of storage. Not to mention the less than stellar 2 to 3 Mbps upload speed of my Internet connection (download is a decent 45 Mbps) which is not conducive to large photo files!
How large are your photo files? Even a picture at 24 megaxpixels in RAW format would take under a minute to upload on a 2Mbps connection. Your initial upload of a library would take significant time, but so what? Turn on the computer and let it do its thing. Then, as pictures are taken and/or added, they can be uploaded.
But I guess Budapest people love them too :P
Looks promising...very clean and modern. I hope I don't have to use iCloud with this though. Apple's current pricing is too high for a decent amount of storage. Not to mention the less than stellar 2 to 3 Mbps upload speed of my Internet connection (download is a decent 45 Mbps) which is not conducive to large photo files!
How large are your photo files? Even a picture at 24 megaxpixels in RAW format would take under a minute to upload on a 2Mbps connection. Your initial upload of a library would take significant time, but so what? Turn on the computer and let it do its thing. Then, as pictures are taken and/or added, they can be uploaded.
A 10GB photo library would take 7 hours 24 minutes to upload on a 3Mb connection, 11 hours and 7 minutes on a 2Mb connection.
A 50GB library would be 37 hours (3Mb) and 56 hours (2Mb).
With a 50Mb upload, 10GB is 27 minutes, 50GB is 2 hours 13 minutes.
http://www.macrumors.com/2010/09/13/did-apple-acquire-imsense-ltd-for-hdr-capabilities-in-ios-4-1/
There was an article back in 2006 said Apple had cut the Aperture team, which is something they'd do shortly after acquiring a company:
http://news.cnet.com/Apple-slashes-Aperture-team/2100-1012_3-6066093.html
They promoted some of them to different roles. They hired new managers for the team in 2012:
http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/06/08/aperture_ios_app_hinted_at_in_apple_job_postings.html
The following guy was a lead engineer on Aperture all the way through its development and is still at Apple but now in a different role:
https://twitter.com/blakeseely
http://patents.justia.com/inventor/blake-seely
Some Aperture engineers were noted to have moved into developing frameworks such as Core Image. Perhaps Apple thought Aperture didn't appeal to a wide enough audience (they'll have sales numbers on how many bought it). It would make sense to take parts of it to improve photo management software that would be used by all Mac users if standalone sales were low. If the Core Image frameworks get the editing capability Aperture had then Photos should have the same level of control but these things tend to get simplified in the consumer apps. Photos looks more like a revamped iPhoto.
I upgraded my mid 2012 MBP to 10.10.3 a few hours ago and opened the app. It automatically found my iPhoto library (though you can choose manually). Took like half an hour to migrate my 5GB library.. From the short while I used it, if recommend finalising all sorting of pictures (ie. Faces and/or Albums) in iPhoto as they're now replaced with Moments and Collections like on iOS. I could view previously sorted photos in Faces and Albums but I couldn't find a way to add new ones. Hopefully this will be coming in the second beta. I liked how they used the Apple Watch view to show the faces though. .
Bad what?
Utter rubbish for serious photographers. This is point and shoot software for the selfie dilettantes.
You may be right.
And what's more, there's no other photography software available for the Mac, not one single application other than the upcoming Photos application! So Macs are now useless for serious photographers. Soon, Apple will abandon serious video editors and other creatives. Everyone will move to Windows, the Mac will die and take the iPhone with it, and APPLE WILL BE DOOMED!
Got it.
In this developer release, does the New Photos for OS X co-exist with the current/older iPhoto application?
As for your question, they can coexist together. However once you've migrated your iPhoto library to Photos.app—there will be a separate library for Photos.app—changes you make to either library WILL NOT be propagated to the other library. iPhoto prompts this the first time you reopen it post migration
I upgraded my mid 2012 MBP to 10.10.3 a few hours ago and opened the app. It automatically found my iPhoto library (though you can choose manually). Took like half an hour to migrate my 5GB library.. From the short while I used it, if recommend finalising all sorting of pictures (ie. Faces and/or Albums) in iPhoto as they're now replaced with Moments and Collections like on iOS. I could view previously sorted photos in Faces and Albums but I couldn't find a way to add new ones. Hopefully this will be coming in the second beta. I liked how they used the Apple Watch view to show the faces though. .
Will albums currently created manually in iPhoto be preserved in Photos, even if they're called something different? I sincerely hope so.
Utter rubbish for serious photographers.
get the **** over yourself.
Utter rubbish for serious photographers. This is point and shoot software for the selfie dilettantes.
"Serious photographers" have been using Lightroom for years, and would never, ever have expected this Photos application to have the same kind of functionality.