I believe there will be a tighter integration between Pixelmator and Photos within the next few months so that changes made by Pixelmator do not affect the original versions of photos stored in the OS X Photos library. The fact that Pixelmator doesn't have the photo library organization tools is actually a good thing as long as it can tap into OS X Photos photo library. Keeping different versions of a photo library in different applications is a nightmare.
That sounds like a horrible mashup. If Photos was only a library browser such as Bridge then ok, but I would hate to have to jump back and forth between two different apps depending on what feature I needed at any given moment.
Let's hope that they do the same thing with Photos that they did with FCPX. When it was first released it was missing a lot of pro features but they have mostly all been added back in over the last couple releases. With Photos, they will likely add additional features with each update until it eventually reaches pro grade.
The thing I find rather odd is that they EOL a professional tool and suggest you use a beta application. Pros don't do beta especially a whole new beta OS X. They wait for the final release rather than risk fouling up their workflow with unfinished software.
Agree with your Beta test comments. Not to mention that when photos was introduced an Apple representative specifically mentioned that Pros would have to look elsewhere. Now they're sending Pros an email to give Photos a try? There is obvious confusion at Apple and who knows maybe they are coming to realize they are making a mistake. Time will tell. All very strange.
I wonder why they didn't just use Photos for managing and syncing the library and have Aperture become solely an editor that interfaces with this library of images.
They can probably add a lot of the features back in with plug-ins but taking out the library parts of Aperture and pointing it at the Photos library would have been a quick way because there's quite a lot of features:
It would give Photos users a quick upgrade path if they decided to do more work with their images. They'll have managed their photos already in Photos and buying Aperture would just add some advanced editing capability.
Because the editing features of Aperture were never its strong point. Its strengths, especially over Lightroom, were in its DAM features. Extensive keyword support, deep support of metadata, projects, folders, albums, light tables, etc. made it a fantastic tool for organizing and managing a collection of tens of thousands of RAW images. When it launched, it offered features in this area that simply hadn't existed.
As an image editor, it was always mediocre at best. The RAW conversion was poor for quite some time (much improved in 3), it had terrible noise removal, and you could forget about lens correction and chromatic aberration. In many ways, ACR was vastly superior and for serious editing, a round trip to Photoshop was almost a necessity. Yet the DAM features kept bringing photographers back to the table.
So the last reason to keep Aperture alive would be to function solely as an editor. ACR, Photoshop, Lightroom, Pixelmatr, and the new Affinity Photo have far surpassed it in this area.
That sounds like a horrible mashup. If Photos was only a library browser such as Bridge then ok, but I would hate to have to jump back and forth between two different apps depending on what feature I needed at any given moment.
How do you expect to use the OS X Photos library for syncing via iCloud Photos and use another image editing application for making the edits not available in OS X Photos? Are you keeping two different photo libraries? THIS sounds like a nightmare to me because none of your edits made in third-party image editing application would be syncing via iCloud Photos to other devices. This is exactly the same mess that exists now, whereby original images sync via Photo Stream, but none of the edits do. Even when iPhoto for iOS existed, it could not sync any edits with iPhoto for OS X via Photo Stream.
How do you expect to use the OS X Photos library for syncing via iCloud Photos and use another image editing application for making the edits not available in OS X Photos?
I don't use iCloud for anything, except syncing contacts and calendars.
Could someone explain to me what happens in the following scenarios with iCloud Photos:
1. My Photos library in OS X exceeds the available flash size on my iOS device. Which photos will sync from the iCloud Photos and which will not? Am I going to be given a choice? This is a scenario that the majority of iOS users will face due to their current iPhoto or Aperture library size being hundreds of gigabytes.
2 In my Family Sharing scenario, I want to have one Family photo library and have all devices (including Apple TV) to be able to sync from this one master photo library that currently lives on one of the Macs, but with iCloud Photos enabled will also be synced to iCloud. Will Family Sharing support photo sharing in the same way as it supports app sharing and music sharing?
I do realize that I can use the Shared Streams to be able to share some or all of the "master" photo library with other iCloud accounts, including my family members' iCloud accounts. However, if I decide that I want my family members to have access to the entire photo library (that will be migrated from Aperture to Photos and synced to iCloud), which is currently 500 GB, I would have to purchase 500 GB of iCloud storage for every family member. If I never migrated to Family Sharing and continued to have one "master" iCloud account as the iCloud account on every iOS and OS X device in my family, I would not need to purchase 500 GB multiple times as every one of my devices would be able to share the same 500 GB purchased for the "master" account. So, it seems strange to me that Apple encouraged people to use Family Sharing to share apps and music among different iCloud accounts that are part of the same Family Sharing setup, but at the same time, Apple has no plans to do the same with photo sharing. Or, am I wrong and photo sharing works the same exact way between iCloud accounts that are members of the same Family Sharing as it works for apps and music?
Thank you.
Not wishing to sound harsh but the people you are asking that know, read the literature.
Not wishing to sound harsh but the people you are asking that know, read the literature.
I read literature as well and was never able to find answers to these questions. Frankly, I don't think anyone knows yet. If you do and would rather point me in the direction of the right literature than answer the question, please do so.
I don't use iCloud for anything, except syncing contacts and calendars.
That explains why you find the work flow I described in my previous post so horrible. If you don't sync via iCloud, then you obviously don't care about having one unified library of images that can be accessed by several image editing applications.
The new photo app is NOWHERE NEAR A COMPETENT REPLACEMENT for Aperture. There are ZERO editing tools other than rotate, and other worthless BS.
Why are you so full of shit? I mean, why do you have to lie blatantly? It's not aperture, but your statement is pure sensationalism and falsity. Also, Apple never once pretended Photos is a "replacement" for aperture.
I just took a few quick screenshots, without all the editing options showing. Yeah, ZERO editing tools. I'm morbidly curious if you actually have used photos and decided to lie anyway, if you were too stupid to find the editing options, or if you have never used it and simply decided to talk out of your ass. Which is it? It's telling that the loudest Apple bashers are those who basically resort to outright lying.
That explains why you find the work flow I described in my previous post so horrible. If you don't sync via iCloud, then you obviously don't care about having one unified library of images that can be accessed by several image editing applications.
I do a fair amount of professional photography but it is all very technical in subject matter and the first thing I do is open it in photoshop and save it as a .psd.
I do a fair amount of professional photography but it is all very technical in subject matter and the first thing I do is open it in photoshop and save it as a .psd.
It just occurred to me, Photos seems to be missing the 'edit externally' option to select a tool such as Photoshop for image manipulation as Aperture and iPhoto do.
Why are you so full of shit? I mean, why do you have to lie blatantly? It's not aperture, but your statement is pure sensationalism and falsity. Also, Apple never once pretended Photos is a "replacement" for aperture.
I just took a few quick screenshots, without all the editing options showing. Yeah, ZERO editing tools. I'm morbidly curious if you actually have used photos and decided to lie anyway, if you were too stupid to find the editing options, or if you have never used it and simply decided to talk out of your ass. Which is it? It's telling that the loudest Apple bashers are those who basically resort to outright lying.
"Apple reminded users that they will no longer be able to purchase Aperture after the release of Photos, though it will remain functional in OS X Yosemite."
I read that Apple are NOT upgrading Aperture users to the latest version available under Mavericks; instead users have to upgrade both their OS to Yosemite (which for various reasons they may not be able to do) and require the still available 3.4.3 version of Aperture to miss the latest version 3.5.1 and jump straight to v 3.6. Only 3.6 requires an OS upgrade...
Thank you for purchasing and using your Ferrari. We stopped selling Ferrari's. We introduced the Lada car. We hope you'll like to drive our Lada.
I didn't know what a Lada was so I googled it. I found this picture which I hope everyone enjoys since it shows a Lada with a Samsung factory in the background.
This is circa 1974-1980. I owned one of those back in the day. It is basically a Fiat 124 assembled in Togliatti (Tolyati), the Soviet Union. Mine stayed in the family and lasted for 35 years. It's a classic.
Undoubtedly a sad moment. The last time I was sad from Apple was when they discontinued MBP 17" and now this is the 2nd time. I really enjoy using Aperture and am quiet used to of it but don't know what's gonna happen. I will keep using Aperture, but it is so sad that we will never see an update again.
....and yes I don't fucking care about their iOS, iOS devices and integration with OS X as I am bored with those toys.
...to those who keep throwing ideas to use Lightroom... sorry, that is not an option for me for now.
Comments
That sounds like a horrible mashup. If Photos was only a library browser such as Bridge then ok, but I would hate to have to jump back and forth between two different apps depending on what feature I needed at any given moment.
Agree with your Beta test comments. Not to mention that when photos was introduced an Apple representative specifically mentioned that Pros would have to look elsewhere. Now they're sending Pros an email to give Photos a try? There is obvious confusion at Apple and who knows maybe they are coming to realize they are making a mistake. Time will tell. All very strange.
I wonder why they didn't just use Photos for managing and syncing the library and have Aperture become solely an editor that interfaces with this library of images.
They can probably add a lot of the features back in with plug-ins but taking out the library parts of Aperture and pointing it at the Photos library would have been a quick way because there's quite a lot of features:
http://www.apple.com/aperture/features/
It would give Photos users a quick upgrade path if they decided to do more work with their images. They'll have managed their photos already in Photos and buying Aperture would just add some advanced editing capability.
Because the editing features of Aperture were never its strong point. Its strengths, especially over Lightroom, were in its DAM features. Extensive keyword support, deep support of metadata, projects, folders, albums, light tables, etc. made it a fantastic tool for organizing and managing a collection of tens of thousands of RAW images. When it launched, it offered features in this area that simply hadn't existed.
As an image editor, it was always mediocre at best. The RAW conversion was poor for quite some time (much improved in 3), it had terrible noise removal, and you could forget about lens correction and chromatic aberration. In many ways, ACR was vastly superior and for serious editing, a round trip to Photoshop was almost a necessity. Yet the DAM features kept bringing photographers back to the table.
So the last reason to keep Aperture alive would be to function solely as an editor. ACR, Photoshop, Lightroom, Pixelmatr, and the new Affinity Photo have far surpassed it in this area.
That sounds like a horrible mashup. If Photos was only a library browser such as Bridge then ok, but I would hate to have to jump back and forth between two different apps depending on what feature I needed at any given moment.
How do you expect to use the OS X Photos library for syncing via iCloud Photos and use another image editing application for making the edits not available in OS X Photos? Are you keeping two different photo libraries? THIS sounds like a nightmare to me because none of your edits made in third-party image editing application would be syncing via iCloud Photos to other devices. This is exactly the same mess that exists now, whereby original images sync via Photo Stream, but none of the edits do. Even when iPhoto for iOS existed, it could not sync any edits with iPhoto for OS X via Photo Stream.
How do you expect to use the OS X Photos library for syncing via iCloud Photos and use another image editing application for making the edits not available in OS X Photos?
I don't use iCloud for anything, except syncing contacts and calendars.
Look it's not Aperture, on that I agree mainly due to lack of stacks for me, but get your facts right before posting.
Not wishing to sound harsh but the people you are asking that know, read the literature.
Not wishing to sound harsh but the people you are asking that know, read the literature.
I read literature as well and was never able to find answers to these questions. Frankly, I don't think anyone knows yet. If you do and would rather point me in the direction of the right literature than answer the question, please do so.
I don't use iCloud for anything, except syncing contacts and calendars.
That explains why you find the work flow I described in my previous post so horrible. If you don't sync via iCloud, then you obviously don't care about having one unified library of images that can be accessed by several image editing applications.
The new photo app is NOWHERE NEAR A COMPETENT REPLACEMENT for Aperture. There are ZERO editing tools other than rotate, and other worthless BS.
Why are you so full of shit? I mean, why do you have to lie blatantly? It's not aperture, but your statement is pure sensationalism and falsity. Also, Apple never once pretended Photos is a "replacement" for aperture.
I just took a few quick screenshots, without all the editing options showing. Yeah, ZERO editing tools. I'm morbidly curious if you actually have used photos and decided to lie anyway, if you were too stupid to find the editing options, or if you have never used it and simply decided to talk out of your ass. Which is it? It's telling that the loudest Apple bashers are those who basically resort to outright lying.
2
I do a fair amount of professional photography but it is all very technical in subject matter and the first thing I do is open it in photoshop and save it as a .psd.
It just occurred to me, Photos seems to be missing the 'edit externally' option to select a tool such as Photoshop for image manipulation as Aperture and iPhoto do.
There is always the chance he was simply mistaken and upset.
I read that Apple are NOT upgrading Aperture users to the latest version available under Mavericks; instead users have to upgrade both their OS to Yosemite (which for various reasons they may not be able to do) and require the still available 3.4.3 version of Aperture to miss the latest version 3.5.1 and jump straight to v 3.6. Only 3.6 requires an OS upgrade...
Thank you for purchasing and using your Ferrari. We stopped selling Ferrari's. We introduced the Lada car. We hope you'll like to drive our Lada.
Dear user,
Thank you for purchasing and using your Ferrari. We stopped selling Ferrari's. We introduced the Lada car. We hope you'll like to drive our Lada.
I didn't know what a Lada was so I googled it. I found this picture which I hope everyone enjoys since it shows a Lada with a Samsung factory in the background.
This is circa 1974-1980. I owned one of those back in the day. It is basically a Fiat 124 assembled in Togliatti (Tolyati), the Soviet Union. Mine stayed in the family and lasted for 35 years. It's a classic.
....and yes I don't fucking care about their iOS, iOS devices and integration with OS X as I am bored with those toys.
...to those who keep throwing ideas to use Lightroom... sorry, that is not an option for me for now.