According to the WSJ review, the photos can only be backed up on iCloud using Photos.
That reads like foolishness. If you save the full res of all your photos locally, as the prefs option indicates, TM will simply back them all up. I cannot understand why WSJ would say otherwise, without reading their article. I can only assume they were talking about online sharing options.
According to the WSJ review, the photos can only be backed up on iCloud using Photos.
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
That reads like foolishness. If you save the full res of all your photos locally, as the prefs option indicates, TM will simply back them all up. I cannot understand why WSJ would say otherwise, without reading their article. I can only assume they were talking about online sharing options.
You are correct. I am sure you can backup the photos locally using Time Machine or manually with whatever service you want to use. I was thinking about Photos automatically syncing photos to iCloud (I confused syncing with backup when I read pfisher's comments). Photos won't sync to Dropbox or other services.
Thanks, that's what I thought. Yes, syncing. There will probably come a hack to point the auto syncing to iCloud to become a local thing (nice, over WiFi, sync all adjustments without the need for Internet, though the planet is pretty much covered, just not high bandwidth), but that might break with future updates to OSX and/or the Photos app.
edit: on 2nd thought, that's actually a nice opportunity for Dropbox and the like, should it be allowed to mess around in the Photos app and have syncing point to their servers.
This can't be released soon enough. It would be great to see some local cloud/time capsule integration as I'm sick of waiting for AppleTV to play videos from the cloud when the original instance is on the local network. This would probably be a good private option too.
How well does it support extensions (or rather which extensions support it) so far? That will be the killer feature for this product
I'm curious what's in store for the photographers and dSLR users. RAW support? I was going to buy Aperture just before Apple announced discontinuing it. My only choice was to go and subscribe to Adobe's Lightroom/Photoshop suite.
While I'm not a fan of Adobe, it's going to take Apple doing something really special for me to get off of all that now.
I'm sure RAW support is there. The bigger question is going forward will Apple be as timely in adding support when new cameras come out. Without an Aperture user base (small as it might be) there will be even less motivation for Apple to add new cameras.
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. .
In another first-look article on Photos I read they also talked about edits not transferring back-and-forth after the first import into Photos. Makes sense. That would be a mess to deal with programmatically. But I also took from the article that that didn't make duplicates of the files, either, implying that the same masters could be used by both programs and each would just keep a database of the edits and the previews. Did you lose 5 GB of storage when you upgraded?
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.
MacWorld's first-look article is worth a read. They mention that there is a sidebar which is hidden by default, but they didn't show a screen shot. No other reviews even mention it. Barring something there, it appears organization options are practically non-existent. You can't even have multiple libraries based on what I've read so far.
The rest of it looks pretty solid, but if the organization is limited to what's implied by the screenshots it will be a non-starter for me.
I will say, it's a great product for the masses' holiday snaps and the like but useless for a serious photographer. I just don't understand why Apple don't just keep Aperture. Lots of photographers prefer it to Lightroom. We have Garage Band and Logic Pro X, we have iMovie and FCPro X why on earth can't we have Photos and Aperture Pro X? /rant
Even "enthusiast" photographers would struggle, I think. To be honest, from what I've seen I think I could live with the edit controls. I don't use more advanced controls on more than a handful of photos. I'm far more concerned about what appears to be severely limited organization options as I stated earlier. Apple's assumption seems to be that we only take photos with our iPhones (small files, limited metadata) and nobody has more than a few hundred photos and a couple dozen albums.
I'm also curious about sync options other than iCloud. Can I still use iTunes to sync a select few albums? (Not that you can answer...NDA and all). Perhaps I'll keep using Aperture and just export those photos I want on my other devices to be imported into Photos...simply use it as a syncing conduit.
I will say, it's a great product for the masses' holiday snaps and the like but useless for a serious photographer. I just don't understand why Apple don't just keep Aperture. Lots of photographers prefer it to Lightroom. We have Garage Band and Logic Pro X, we have iMovie and FCPro X why on earth can't we have Photos and Aperture Pro X? /rant
Even "enthusiast" photographers would struggle, I think. To be honest, from what I've seen I think I could live with the edit controls. I don't use more advanced controls on more than a handful of photos. I'm far more concerned about what appears to be severely limited organization options as I stated earlier. Apple's assumption seems to be that we only take photos with our iPhones (small files, limited metadata) and nobody has more than a few hundred photos and a couple dozen albums.
I'm also curious about sync options other than iCloud. Can I still use iTunes to sync a select few albums? (Not that you can answer...NDA and all). Perhaps I'll keep using Aperture and just export those photos I want on my other devices to be imported into Photos...simply use it as a syncing conduit.
You can store quite a few photos and videos with 1TB. A good 100,000 photos, I'd say.
You can store quite a few photos and videos with 1TB. A good 100,000 photos, I'd say.
Sure, but how are you going to organize them? Other than the Years>Collections>Moments auto-sorting (useless to me), are there any other hierarchical organization options? If there is an annual event that I attend, can I place the album of each year's photos into a folder so they are together? Or will I have to scroll through hundreds of icons in the Album grid view to find each album individually? Are there even options to sort photos and/or albums by different criteria other than name? If I have an album can I create sub-groups within that album or do I have to create additional albums for each sub-group (thus making the Albums view even more cluttered)?
Sure, but how are you going to organize them? Other than the Years>Collections>Moments auto-sorting (useless to me), are there any other hierarchical organization options? If there is an annual event that I attend, can I place the album of each year's photos into a folder so they are together? Or will I have to scroll through hundreds of icons in the Album grid view to find each album individually? Are there even options to sort photos and/or albums by different criteria other than name? If I have an album can I create sub-groups within that album or do I have to create additional albums for each sub-group (thus making the Albums view even more cluttered)?
Valid point, do we have any details about Tags/Smart Collections or Moments?
You can store quite a few photos and videos with 1TB. A good 100,000 photos, I'd say.
Sure, but how are you going to organize them? Other than the Years>Collections>Moments auto-sorting (useless to me), are there any other hierarchical organization options? If there is an annual event that I attend, can I place the album of each year's photos into a folder so they are together? Or will I have to scroll through hundreds of icons in the Album grid view to find each album individually? Are there even options to sort photos and/or albums by different criteria other than name? If I have an album can I create sub-groups within that album or do I have to create additional albums for each sub-group (thus making the Albums view even more cluttered)?
I don't have the beta, so I couldn't tell you. As far as I know, albums are retained, so I presume the organisational structure will be similar to iPhoto. The Moments/Collections/Years are simply an additional chronological sorting method.
How does it work or sync if pics stored on external hd I have a hdd connected to my airport ac time capsule It would not sync with iTunes when iPhone plugged in Had to copy back iPhoto to my strained MBP ssd Before itunes would sync iphone So does it bypass iTunes for sync Airport AC needs to accommodate an attached hd
I don't have the beta, so I couldn't tell you. As far as I know, albums are retained, so I presume the organisational structure will be similar to iPhoto. The Moments/Collections/Years are simply an additional chronological sorting method.
Yep. We need one of the media preview folks and/or beta testers (once they get it) to crack open the sidebar and see what the options are. They spend a lot of time talking about the new books and calendar printing options, but only MacWorld has mentioned that their is a hidden sidebar (like Apple hid it in iTunes). And MW didn't talk about it or show it in their screen shots. Hopefully over the next few days they'll get in and do more than kick the tires. And hopefully there are some organization options buried in there someplace.
Even "enthusiast" photographers would struggle, I think. To be honest, from what I've seen I think I could live with the edit controls. I don't use more advanced controls on more than a handful of photos. I'm far more concerned about what appears to be severely limited organization options as I stated earlier. Apple's assumption seems to be that we only take photos with our iPhones (small files, limited metadata) and nobody has more than a few hundred photos and a couple dozen albums.
I'm also curious about sync options other than iCloud. Can I still use iTunes to sync a select few albums? (Not that you can answer...NDA and all). Perhaps I'll keep using Aperture and just export those photos I want on my other devices to be imported into Photos...simply use it as a syncing conduit.
Yep I agree. I have played with Photos for the last few days and I am impressed. However, for my purposes, I am going to use Photos for sharing with friends and family and simply pop stuff in there from Aperture when needed. For work related shoots or serious hobby stuff I couldn't afford the space on the cloud I need (I do a lot of bracketing so 100 MB files for one image in HDR) and yes Photos can be used purely locally and works with RAW if wished, but if I'm storing locally Aperture is better for my work flow than Photos as it is now (and Lightroom IMHO). So I will use both Aperture and Photos. I just wish Aperture would continue to be developed.
Yep. We need one of the media preview folks and/or beta testers (once they get it) to crack open the sidebar and see what the options are. They spend a lot of time talking about the new books and calendar printing options, but only MacWorld has mentioned that their is a hidden sidebar (like Apple hid it in iTunes). And MW didn't talk about it or show it in their screen shots. Hopefully over the next few days they'll get in and do more than kick the tires. And hopefully there are some organization options buried in there someplace.
It's not 'hidden' it just toggles off and on like many Apple apps. Lots of good organization stuff, pretty similar to Aperture.
Comments
Only on iCloud? Can use other backup services?
Probably.
According to the WSJ review, the photos can only be backed up on iCloud using Photos. Pricing is also listed there.
"Apple whets everyone’s appetite with 5 gigabytes of storage for free, but then charges $4 per month for 200 GB, or $10 for 500 GB. And it caps out at 1 TB for $20 per month. And you can’t use competing services such as Dropbox or Google Drive with Photos." http://www.wsj.com/articles/bye-bye-iphoto-apple-reboots-with-photos-for-mac-1423159635?KEYWORDS=photos
Kind of steep for 1TB (my library is over 800GB).
That reads like foolishness. If you save the full res of all your photos locally, as the prefs option indicates, TM will simply back them all up. I cannot understand why WSJ would say otherwise, without reading their article. I can only assume they were talking about online sharing options.
Only on iCloud? Can use other backup services?
Probably.
According to the WSJ review, the photos can only be backed up on iCloud using Photos.
That reads like foolishness. If you save the full res of all your photos locally, as the prefs option indicates, TM will simply back them all up. I cannot understand why WSJ would say otherwise, without reading their article. I can only assume they were talking about online sharing options.
You are correct. I am sure you can backup the photos locally using Time Machine or manually with whatever service you want to use. I was thinking about Photos automatically syncing photos to iCloud (I confused syncing with backup when I read pfisher's comments). Photos won't sync to Dropbox or other services.
Thanks, that's what I thought. Yes, syncing. There will probably come a hack to point the auto syncing to iCloud to become a local thing (nice, over WiFi, sync all adjustments without the need for Internet, though the planet is pretty much covered, just not high bandwidth), but that might break with future updates to OSX and/or the Photos app.
edit: on 2nd thought, that's actually a nice opportunity for Dropbox and the like, should it be allowed to mess around in the Photos app and have syncing point to their servers.
How well does it support extensions (or rather which extensions support it) so far? That will be the killer feature for this product
I'm curious what's in store for the photographers and dSLR users. RAW support? I was going to buy Aperture just before Apple announced discontinuing it. My only choice was to go and subscribe to Adobe's Lightroom/Photoshop suite.
While I'm not a fan of Adobe, it's going to take Apple doing something really special for me to get off of all that now.
I'm sure RAW support is there. The bigger question is going forward will Apple be as timely in adding support when new cameras come out. Without an Aperture user base (small as it might be) there will be even less motivation for Apple to add new cameras.
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. .
In another first-look article on Photos I read they also talked about edits not transferring back-and-forth after the first import into Photos. Makes sense. That would be a mess to deal with programmatically. But I also took from the article that that didn't make duplicates of the files, either, implying that the same masters could be used by both programs and each would just keep a database of the edits and the previews. Did you lose 5 GB of storage when you upgraded?
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.
MacWorld's first-look article is worth a read. They mention that there is a sidebar which is hidden by default, but they didn't show a screen shot. No other reviews even mention it. Barring something there, it appears organization options are practically non-existent. You can't even have multiple libraries based on what I've read so far.
The rest of it looks pretty solid, but if the organization is limited to what's implied by the screenshots it will be a non-starter for me.
I will say, it's a great product for the masses' holiday snaps and the like but useless for a serious photographer. I just don't understand why Apple don't just keep Aperture. Lots of photographers prefer it to Lightroom. We have Garage Band and Logic Pro X, we have iMovie and FCPro X why on earth can't we have Photos and Aperture Pro X? /rant
Even "enthusiast" photographers would struggle, I think. To be honest, from what I've seen I think I could live with the edit controls. I don't use more advanced controls on more than a handful of photos. I'm far more concerned about what appears to be severely limited organization options as I stated earlier. Apple's assumption seems to be that we only take photos with our iPhones (small files, limited metadata) and nobody has more than a few hundred photos and a couple dozen albums.
I'm also curious about sync options other than iCloud. Can I still use iTunes to sync a select few albums? (Not that you can answer...NDA and all). Perhaps I'll keep using Aperture and just export those photos I want on my other devices to be imported into Photos...simply use it as a syncing conduit.
I will say, it's a great product for the masses' holiday snaps and the like but useless for a serious photographer. I just don't understand why Apple don't just keep Aperture. Lots of photographers prefer it to Lightroom. We have Garage Band and Logic Pro X, we have iMovie and FCPro X why on earth can't we have Photos and Aperture Pro X? /rant
Even "enthusiast" photographers would struggle, I think. To be honest, from what I've seen I think I could live with the edit controls. I don't use more advanced controls on more than a handful of photos. I'm far more concerned about what appears to be severely limited organization options as I stated earlier. Apple's assumption seems to be that we only take photos with our iPhones (small files, limited metadata) and nobody has more than a few hundred photos and a couple dozen albums.
I'm also curious about sync options other than iCloud. Can I still use iTunes to sync a select few albums? (Not that you can answer...NDA and all). Perhaps I'll keep using Aperture and just export those photos I want on my other devices to be imported into Photos...simply use it as a syncing conduit.
You can store quite a few photos and videos with 1TB. A good 100,000 photos, I'd say.
You can store quite a few photos and videos with 1TB. A good 100,000 photos, I'd say.
Sure, but how are you going to organize them? Other than the Years>Collections>Moments auto-sorting (useless to me), are there any other hierarchical organization options? If there is an annual event that I attend, can I place the album of each year's photos into a folder so they are together? Or will I have to scroll through hundreds of icons in the Album grid view to find each album individually? Are there even options to sort photos and/or albums by different criteria other than name? If I have an album can I create sub-groups within that album or do I have to create additional albums for each sub-group (thus making the Albums view even more cluttered)?
The best of everything except Aperture... SMH
Valid point, do we have any details about Tags/Smart Collections or Moments?
I don't have the beta, so I couldn't tell you. As far as I know, albums are retained, so I presume the organisational structure will be similar to iPhoto. The Moments/Collections/Years are simply an additional chronological sorting method.
I have a hdd connected to my airport ac time capsule
It would not sync with iTunes when iPhone plugged in
Had to copy back iPhoto to my strained MBP ssd
Before itunes would sync iphone
So does it bypass iTunes for sync
Airport AC needs to accommodate an attached hd
I don't have the beta, so I couldn't tell you. As far as I know, albums are retained, so I presume the organisational structure will be similar to iPhoto. The Moments/Collections/Years are simply an additional chronological sorting method.
Yep. We need one of the media preview folks and/or beta testers (once they get it) to crack open the sidebar and see what the options are. They spend a lot of time talking about the new books and calendar printing options, but only MacWorld has mentioned that their is a hidden sidebar (like Apple hid it in iTunes). And MW didn't talk about it or show it in their screen shots. Hopefully over the next few days they'll get in and do more than kick the tires. And hopefully there are some organization options buried in there someplace.
Yep I agree. I have played with Photos for the last few days and I am impressed. However, for my purposes, I am going to use Photos for sharing with friends and family and simply pop stuff in there from Aperture when needed. For work related shoots or serious hobby stuff I couldn't afford the space on the cloud I need (I do a lot of bracketing so 100 MB files for one image in HDR) and yes Photos can be used purely locally and works with RAW if wished, but if I'm storing locally Aperture is better for my work flow than Photos as it is now (and Lightroom IMHO). So I will use both Aperture and Photos. I just wish Aperture would continue to be developed.
It's not 'hidden' it just toggles off and on like many Apple apps. Lots of good organization stuff, pretty similar to Aperture.
Sign up for the public beta testing of 10.10.3. Due in a few weeks. You'll be very pleasantly surprised by Photos.