slurpy wrote: »
Wow, this is pretty shocking. iPhoto I can definitely understand, keeping both would create too much confusion, redundancy, and complications. But Aperture? Seems that serves a completely different use. It does not even come with OSX, its an optional paid download, so I dont understand the need to eliminate it. There's probably alot we don't know, lately Apple has shown renewed focus on its pro apps, and I dont see them just dropping this with no alternative.
As a hobbyist who uses Aperture weekly, I'm disappointed. Aperture was fairly revolutionary when introduced. Before that, it was basically Photoshop for everything which is overkill in most cases. They let others advance while they stood still. I wonder if Aperture was sacrificed to appease Adobe for Apple effectively killing Flash?
Edit: On the one hand, this is disappointing. On the other hand, Wall Street seems to like it and Apple's stock price bumped on the announcement so I guess that it pays for my transition. Too bad though as I liked the interface.
If you are to believe Jobs' version of the story there would be no Mac if Woz had his way. We'd all be on Apple ~ 25XLC///8's. Understandably Woz didn't want to abandon the classic platform.
davidinsf wrote: »
Bottom line, never rely on Apple apps for business...
eightzero wrote: »
A killer feature ... would be to have an option for your own "cloud" storage location
Apple giving the finger to its pro users once again....
tallest skil wrote: »
I’ll hold you to that. I hope beyond hope myself that Photos is a replacement to Aperture, but shipping freely with every Mac, I seriously doubt it. I doubt if it will even have RAW support.
Really leads me to believe that you’re wrong.
I agree with your point. A lot of Adobe software feels very 'old' to me, as though the code base for long-standing features has never been updated. They also take forever to install many files in many places. Lightroom is different: AIUI, it was developed as a new native Cocoa (ie Mac OS X) product; the Windows version has always been a port from the Mac product rather than the usual other way round.
I have been using LR since it was first released as a public beta and I love it. At the time, I evaluated LR against Aperture and concluded that Aperture looked better but was full of bugs (it had a terrible reputation at first, if you remember). Now, I'm a convinced LR person and can't really judge Aperture, though I do use it for photo book creation. LR is superb for a fast, efficient workflow from camera to library to finished picture, however you want to use it. Its print, book, web and slideshow capabilities are rudimentary compared to Aperture/iPhoto. I do hope that the apparent Apple/Adobe co-operation will bring photo stream to LR though.
It's also the case, though Adobe rather hide it, that you can still buy the product outright rather than pay monthly for CC (at least in the UK, I just checked and it's £102 for the current version).
Boo... Although, to be fair, I've thought about moving to Lightroom anyway especially with their new mobile iPad version.
Anyone know how easy it is to migrate one's Aperture library to Lightroom?
There is no migration tool. The easiest and simplest way is to STOP using Aperture at 17:00, and at 17:01 use Lightroom to process your photos. The time is irrelevant, as I was using it to make a point, but none the less, keep Aperture on your Mac for historical purposes but process from the future forward only in LR.
Aperture hasn't been "better" than Lightroom for ages.
Define better? LR has had a better feature set for years. The modular approach is a bit wonky but for the most part LR out performs Aperture in that it does not crash or hang nearly as much.
"crushed" - I too am in the same boat as so many are as of today. I am upset to hear this from a second source opposed to Apple directly. It's time that Apple step up to the plate and tell us who they intend their customers be from ...Pool #1: Consumers of iWhatevers Only or Pool # 2: Prosumers and professionals that require incredibly stable and solid software that their businesses can trust. I tried Lightroom so many times in the hopes i would get it. I never did but I tried. It's one thing to reveal in all its splendour a new MacBook or iPad that blows away the public and defies all established rumours prior to its launch. It's another things to break the chain of trust that is implied with $299 then $199 then $89 upgrades that stake you to a suite or specific application. In fact I like so many have developed a 'trusted' workflow of Importing>tweaking>external filters>exporting > backups that as of today is officially broken and broken hard. And to think I just took delivery of an all-out 27" iMac, 3 TB hardrive with Fusion tech and 16 gig's of ram just to push Aperture even harder than I had already been doing. I feel so let down.
That's right and even the subscription for Lightroom + Photoshop isn't crazy at around £9 a month. Compared to the cost of most lenses, it's peanuts.
I am surprised but I am excited about the new Photos application for OSX Yosemite - it looks like a slimmed version of Lightroom/Aperture which may be the only thing I need and use photoshop for retouching.