Now I have no idea what will happen to it with a future OSX update, though perhaps running it in a VM would be ok for some people.
I think that might be OK, if we can find mobile HW with lots of RAM. The only limitation that I have found with Aperture is it is a RAM hog. I can not run it very long without at least 16GB of RAM, before it starts paging and thrashing. C1P does not have this issue. If I are using using Aperture to view photos and make very little non-destructive edits, its fine. Do a lot of non-destructive edits to photos and look out. It pages and thrashes, if I have less than 16GB (i.e. 8GB). Right now, if we want more than 16GB, we are all tied to desktop HW. Maybe things will improve with the newer laptop chipset.
I have some concerns about this approach. One of the things that I really like about Apple software is that it in fact does not have many 3rd party plug-ins or extensions. Everything is designed by one organization and with a common usage model, flow and design philosophy. There are not many 3rd party extensions which causes issues when they interoperate with each other or need to get synced up with upcoming base SW changes when new versions are released. If I wanted that I would switch back to Windows or use Android. However, I'll try to keep an open mind. Maybe it will be different, but after so many years of seeing the other model fail, I have my doubts. Lets hope it works. I'll keep on eye on it.
I too hope this solution will work. Perhaps Apple will see value in all the valuable 3rd party plugins they'll create, and take some of that value and integrate it. That wouldn't be the first time. One thing that makes me think Photos is a real iOS app (yes, yes, I know it's for OSX) is the fact that we cannot add GPS info to photos within the app. That sucks, but I guess it won't take much effort to first import photos from my DSLR into Aperture, apply things, like GPS, curves et cetera, to the photos and export versions which I then add to Photos. A workaround, for sure, but doable. But a thing like that makes me view Apple stance that the really focus on one app for all devices kinda approach. And with the iPhone, iPod and cellular iPads putting GPS info into the photos already I can understand their thinking. Whether I like it or not.
I think that might be OK, if we can find mobile HW with lots of RAM. The only limitation that I have found with Aperture is it is a RAM hog. I can not run it very long without at least 16GB of RAM, before it starts paging and thrashing. C1P does not have this issue. If I are using using Aperture to view photos and make very little non-destructive edits, its fine. Do a lot of non-destructive edits to photos and look out. It pages and thrashes, if I have less than 16GB (i.e. 8GB). Right now, if we want more than 16GB, we are all tied to desktop HW. Maybe things will improve with the newer laptop chipset.
Here I am with my limited view on how others use Aperture. I don't have a laptop,, always work on my MP and never experience the RAM issue. It is actually a bug, happened around 3.3 I believe, but never was fixed. Must be because they already set their eye on Photos. A crying shame for all laptop users, for sure.
I'm surprised nobody has brought up some sort of conspiracy theory like Apple giving up Aperture in exchange for Adobe continuing to make Creative Suite for Mac.
Here I am with my limited view on how others use Aperture. I don't have a laptop,, always work on my MP and never experience the RAM issue. It is actually a bug, happened around 3.3 I believe, but never was fixed. Must be because they already set their eye on Photos. A crying shame for all laptop users, for sure.
I have both. I use Aperture's partial library export and merge workflow. This allow me to work remotely on my rMBP for both post and tethered capture and then sync up to with the desktop when required.
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?
Yes. It essentially duplicates the iPhoto library as a new Photos library.
Yes. It essentially duplicates the iPhoto library as a new Photos library.
Yet it still duplicates your photos, be it .jpg or in raw. This won't bode well for people on a tight SSD. I don't understand why software programmers don't make the effort and simply move these originals to a new location in their newly designed package/library.
Will albums currently created manually in iPhoto be preserved in Photos, even if they're called something different? I sincerely hope so.
I think it's because so that people who feel that Photos—in it's current form—is lacking/unsatisfactory compared to iPhoto are able to switch back to iPhoto–like I did.
Comments
I think that might be OK, if we can find mobile HW with lots of RAM. The only limitation that I have found with Aperture is it is a RAM hog. I can not run it very long without at least 16GB of RAM, before it starts paging and thrashing. C1P does not have this issue. If I are using using Aperture to view photos and make very little non-destructive edits, its fine. Do a lot of non-destructive edits to photos and look out. It pages and thrashes, if I have less than 16GB (i.e. 8GB). Right now, if we want more than 16GB, we are all tied to desktop HW. Maybe things will improve with the newer laptop chipset.
I too hope this solution will work. Perhaps Apple will see value in all the valuable 3rd party plugins they'll create, and take some of that value and integrate it. That wouldn't be the first time. One thing that makes me think Photos is a real iOS app (yes, yes, I know it's for OSX) is the fact that we cannot add GPS info to photos within the app. That sucks, but I guess it won't take much effort to first import photos from my DSLR into Aperture, apply things, like GPS, curves et cetera, to the photos and export versions which I then add to Photos. A workaround, for sure, but doable. But a thing like that makes me view Apple stance that the really focus on one app for all devices kinda approach. And with the iPhone, iPod and cellular iPads putting GPS info into the photos already I can understand their thinking. Whether I like it or not.
Here I am with my limited view on how others use Aperture. I don't have a laptop,, always work on my MP and never experience the RAM issue. It is actually a bug, happened around 3.3 I believe, but never was fixed. Must be because they already set their eye on Photos. A crying shame for all laptop users, for sure.
Here I am with my limited view on how others use Aperture. I don't have a laptop,, always work on my MP and never experience the RAM issue. It is actually a bug, happened around 3.3 I believe, but never was fixed. Must be because they already set their eye on Photos. A crying shame for all laptop users, for sure.
I have both. I use Aperture's partial library export and merge workflow. This allow me to work remotely on my rMBP for both post and tethered capture and then sync up to with the desktop when required.
Yes. It essentially duplicates the iPhoto library as a new Photos library.
Yet it still duplicates your photos, be it .jpg or in raw. This won't bode well for people on a tight SSD. I don't understand why software programmers don't make the effort and simply move these originals to a new location in their newly designed package/library.