She just upgraded to a Sony A77ii (so far, fantastic), but there was nearly a showstopper. Aperture does not support the RAW image format from this camera!
Have you seen this?
This update adds RAW image compatibility for the following cameras to Aperture 3 and iPhoto '11:
Usually the point-n-shoot come with GPS but not the DSLR types. I therefore take my Garmin with me, setting the time on the camera to match the GPS unit. After importing the photos I can import the .gpx file and, well, you get the picture.
Yes, a very discombobschlobulated workaround.
I'm "dreaming" again... but what if Apple was able to talk Sony into sticking a BT 4.0 chip into their cameras? Sony unarguably makes the very best all-round CMOS on the planet at the moment, even giving Nikon a leg up on Canon since they license them as well. Now include an app and/or extension for iOS that relays gps to the camera to be able to embed in meta data or EXIF. Now about that watch I've heard rumors about... that could also do the trick if paired with the camera
A note about meta data. I've been hoping for a long time that big developers like Adobe, MS or Google would start to use OpenMeta themselves (project page hosted on Google). Not only because Apple is using it, but it would be just plain awesome to have cross-platform meta data someday. It already is the basis for Spotlight and we all know since WWDC that Spotlight is going to be going big system-wide on OSX and iOS will use it as well. Any of the big guns that really want to get Apple fans to consider their offerings, would do well to make "antsy-pants switchers" decision a bit easier. Here's a list of Apple devs using OpenMeta inn their apps currently... which I'm sure isn't a complete up-to-date list. https://code.google.com/p/openmeta/wiki/OpenMetaApplications
One of the devs, Ironic Software has integrated OpenMeta in all of their apps for years and is a lobg-time Apple-only dev.. One of their apps I've played with for years now is Deep, a rather interesting way to search and find photos by color algorithms plus tags. It works rather well, although the UI is quirky and takes a bit of getting used to, I'm sure Apple could do wonders with it.
Good point; that can also be covered by plug-ins. And even though Apple is great at refining and making the software design slick, I bet developers dedicated to just a single option can outdo Apple here, especially on Books.
As for the Light Table, I can understand why you would exactly know what I mean since you don't use Aperture (though you are fully up to speed on its capabilities)
Using Aperture’s light table feature, the photographers could look at images side-by-side to compare tests and finals even though they were in separate directories. The photographers also used Aperture’s processing features for color correcting RAW files and for providing soft proofs for each lighting setup to the retouchers and the editors.
I use it to create a collage. It's fun to lay out photos and put smaller sized next to larger ones. Overlap them. See which photos haven't been put on the Light Table yet. Print as .pdf, send to Print House. A pity we can't rotate the photos. Oh well.
Oh my! I was missing something, because LT looks like something I could seriously make great use of(!)
OT:
LOL on this site, a user sig: "I have a photographic memory but never got it developed"
One of those, "why didn't I think of that" moments! Love it!
As to your later post on that new software from Nikon, I don't think they should even try to develop desktop software. Stick to what you know best, Nikon. The UI on your cameras is already bad as it is, don't make people even more frustrated after a shoot.
Shouldn't single out Nikon, because they are all bad(!) I've wondered for years now why no other company can come close to Apple when designing user interfaces, even when when Apple is having a "Bad Icon Day"?!
As for the Photos software, read this article from Jochen H. Schmidt for those interested. Article name is "Photos in Moments of Time and Place"
In order to get some folks interested I simply paste a graph. Graphs sometimes make people interested hehe
But screen dumps may work even better:
Thanks for that! Read the whole thing and have it saved to Evernote for further reference. He talks from experience and knowledge, rather than my simplified guessing and dreaming. Sorry I don't have more time to put into research these days, but hey... I have a ton of Al Qaeda-device carrying people to help switch to iOS and stop being called terrorists*** :smokey:
*** Ouch! I'm just kidding! Really! Get off my a**! :rolleyes:
Yup. That Aperture update was posted in 2011. The A77ii (aka A77M2) is pretty much an all-new camera that replaced the A77. It just came out about a month ago. The RAW format is not the same.
Heh, I just checked Wikipedia for a release date, and the Sony Alpha article doesn't mention it at all, calling the A77 the "current flagship APS-C camera". LOL
I am not sure what there is in Aperture to break as OS X moves forward it's working fine in Yosemite for me. Final Cut 7 partially works but I agree it is already failing in Mavericks and Yosemite but it is a far more complex animal than Aperture. That said, hopefully Photo will be more than many expect.
What I meant to imply as that Apple may well just make it not work with a Yosemite update in a year, even without an actual need to, in its desire to create a larger base for Photos. Kind of cynical, I know, but Aperture users have a right to be cynical : )
I also am leaving the door open to Photos actually being able to do a lot pretty well. And if it takes 3rd party plugins that don't need to create TIFFs I'll be woodshedding with it for a while before turning my nose up at it. My cynicism comes a lot from my not being a huge fan of more of a percentage of many Apple programs (I even still call them programs intend of apps : o ) and updates that have been released for the past few years. Not enough to switch but a little sheen has come off for me.
It looks like a great opportunity for a third party to step in here. If Apple won't reverse there silly decision I'd like to see someone else have a go. Just no Adobe for me.
It's not as great of an opportunity as you might think due to lack of growth. The price model left in place by Adobe and Apple also isn't that desirable when you figure the amount of work. First raw processors are ridiculously labor intensive. You need to deal with interpolation, rasterization, noise (and sometimes banding) reduction, sharpening algorithms, and a lot of other things. Each camera model supported requires a basic input profile that describes it relative to an internal working space of either scene or output referred varieties. The manufacturers won't provide them, and aside from that they use different encodings and byte ordering, making it more work. To even support modern features such as lack of hard clamping on intermediate conversions or what might be considered true raw exposure compensation (compensation applied prior to full rasterization of data). All of this has to work across many raw formats without breaking or corrupting metadata from one version to the next. I think it's just too much hassle to survive as a standalone product at a really desirable level of fit and finish.
That's just the raw processing portion and does not include the issue of writing filters. These things are used for organization and archiving, which anyone would expect from a new application. Add in some budget for marketing to wrangle customers from the typical giants, and it gets even more excessive.
I can't see this on the Mac at all. The place where newer applications seem to thrive is on the idevices. Some of these packages could be done with far smaller codebases and sold to a broader range of customers. I think that on the Mac it's just asking for a flop.
These are all excellent points. Plus, doesn't even Apple have to reverse engineer new camera outputs to add compatibility?
I would add that we have already seen several commercial alternatives released and none have been really embraced by the RAW/DAM community. I would like to think that Apple exiting the niche leaves as opening to be filled (and we will pay $400 for a fantastic suite of tools that leaves nothing to be desired in either image management or editing), but I have a nagging feeling that if a 3rd party program didn't cause noticeable waves last year it's not going to start causing them this year, and I don't know of any on the horizon.
Yup. That Aperture update was posted in 2011. The A77ii (aka A77M2) is pretty much an all-new camera that replaced the A77. It just came out about a month ago. The RAW format is not the same.
I see, new model. Well, Apple is always taking their time releasing RAW compatibility. I've read that Adobe does this 'in a more timely fashion'.
Indeed, they do need to reeves engineer it. And since the camera manufactures are the ones with their roots in this type of software, I would rather trust my RAW software from them then Apple. But since these manufactures are so bad at designing software I take my chances with Apple, and not the likes of Nikon.
But seeing RAW converted photos from Apple and Nikon side by side, there is a noticeable difference. And not in favour of Apple.
I like Ken for preferring jpg in that respect. Also, because he thinks people shouldn't be messing around with a photo after they're shot. Just do the photography thing before hitting the shutter button, and I tend to agree.
I thought Adobe retained the option to use the older licensing model on Lightroom. I'll give a couple comments on these. Capture One is not that well optimized in some areas, but the raw processing quality is excellent. That goes for both Capture One Pro and the cheaper version. The software itself predated Adobe's raw processing capabilities. Darktable is great, but it's quirky and has a learning curve. It's not necessarily as polished, and it is updated when it's updated. The OSX version is a fork of the main project that I think is maintained by someone else. What I like about the open source stuff is that those projects are often faster to adopt newer workflows such as the use of floats for better precision and ability to output directly to linear float formats like EXR, which makes for a cleaner workflow if you are putting together something with an extended dynamic range.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlandd
These are all excellent points. Plus, doesn't even Apple have to reverse engineer new camera outputs to add compatibility?
I would add that we have already seen several commercial alternatives released and none have been really embraced by the RAW/DAM community. I would like to think that Apple exiting the niche leaves as opening to be filled (and we will pay $400 for a fantastic suite of tools that leaves nothing to be desired in either image management or editing), but I have a nagging feeling that if a 3rd party program didn't cause noticeable waves last year it's not going to start causing them this year, and I don't know of any on the horizon.
Well I do like some of the ones mentioned above, but they all have their quirks. It's very typical with raw processing software, presumably due to all of the variations. I disliked Aperture mostly due to the size of its libraries, but I definitely felt people went with Adobe for the easy learning curve, price, and due to marketing. These smaller companies and open source projects can't beat them in any of those areas, even if they can be more powerful in other areas. I recall some of the very early DAM tools. There was extensis portfolio and another that were big around the early 2000s. Capture One Pro was kind of the go to for processing. This meant you were out around $700~ or so to hit these two areas before adding in storage and backup solutions, which were more complicated to set up at the time. Adobe coming in around $200 was fantastic. They're also big enough to keep such a thing going at $99, as they would have done most of the engineering work for the camera raw plugin anyway. For a smaller company that is an enormous undertaking, especially when most camera manufacturers are not nice enough to release exact specifications. In fact some of the open source projects started with the use of disassembly tools to figure out the byte ordering for each camera. Even if you have that, you still need to create ICC profiles for the cameras, which is a difficult task in itself due to issues of metamerism on target colors. It just takes a lot of resources to do it well, and even Adobe obviously spent way more time tuning profiles for Canon and Nikon than other makes/models.
I see some people here bashing Adobe, but I've got to say that, as a professional photographer, I've tried both iPhoto and Aperture and thought they were a nightmare.
iPhoto because it has a terrible file management system, locking all your photos into a single database file. If that file gets corrupted, it's bye bye.
Aperture because the amount of bugs were terrible to deal with. It would freeze, it would crash. Also, I had Aperture delete actual photos from my hard drive permanently, because of its complicated file management options.
Lightroom is the most reliable piece of software for handling my photos by a large margin, totally stable and very clear when it comes to deleting photos from the Lightroom catalog versus the actual photo on the hard drive. Not to mention it has probably the best algorithms in the market for photo adjustments.
If anything, it's Apple software I'm worried about when it comes to photography software.
iPhoto doesn't store your photos in a single database file. You're confused by the single icon; both the iPhoto app and its database are Packages, made up of thousands of files. Just right click on iPhoto Library in your Pictures folder and 'Show Package Contents' to navigate to the original files plus any that are modified. Or, more simply, you can just Reveal in Finder from within iPhoto to show the original file of a highlighted photo. Even if the iPhoto app itself became so corrupted that you couldn't open it, you would still be able to access all your photos.
iPhoto doesn't store your photos in a single database file. You're confused by the single icon; both the iPhoto app and its database are Packages, made up of thousands of files. Just right click on iPhoto Library in your Pictures folder and 'Show Package Contents' to navigate to the original files plus any that are modified. Or, more simply, you can just Reveal in Finder from within iPhoto to show the original file of a highlighted photo. Even if the iPhoto app itself became so corrupted that you couldn't open it, you would still be able to access all your photos.
Good info; enlightening the uninformed. This packaging BTW also helps backup software to only update the changes made to the files inside that package, not the whole thing.
It's similar to iOS apps; simply replace .ipa with .zip and decompress to see what's inside.
iPhoto doesn't store your photos in a single database file. You're confused by the single icon; both the iPhoto app and its database are Packages, made up of thousands of files. Just right click on iPhoto Library in your Pictures folder and 'Show Package Contents' to navigate to the original files plus any that are modified. Or, more simply, you can just Reveal in Finder from within iPhoto to show the original file of a highlighted photo. Even if the iPhoto app itself became so corrupted that you couldn't open it, you would still be able to access all your photos.
Good info; enlightening the uninformed. This packaging BTW also helps backup software to only update the changes made to the files inside that package, not the whole thing.
It's similar to iOS apps; simply replace .ipa with .zip and decompress to see what's inside.
At one time, I think Outlook stored all its emails as a single file, which was ridiculous, as whenever you backed up, the whole file had to be overwritten, even if only one email had changed. Maybe it's changed now, but I use Mail, so don't know. It was also less than ideal for the reasons that Berna gave.
iPhoto doesn't store your photos in a single database file. You're confused by the single icon; both the iPhoto app and its database are Packages, made up of thousands of files. Just right click on iPhoto Library in your Pictures folder and 'Show Package Contents' to navigate to the original files plus any that are modified. Or, more simply, you can just Reveal in Finder from within iPhoto to show the original file of a highlighted photo. Even if the iPhoto app itself became so corrupted that you couldn't open it, you would still be able to access all your photos.
Yes, this is true technically, and I'm aware that you can right-click the package to view the stored photos. I'm not sure though whether or not packages can get corrupted and prevent access to the content wrapped in it. One thing is certain though, managing your photos hidden under a package is sub-optimal. This is why I love Lightroom, it creates it's own photo catalog, but it stores your photo files in a regular folder structure, normally accessible wherever you choose to place them.
At one time, I think Outlook stored all its emails as a single file, which was ridiculous, as whenever you backed up, the whole file had to be overwritten, even if only one email had changed. Maybe it's changed now, but I use Mail, so don't know. It was also less than ideal for the reasons that Berna gave.
You were hoping MS would learn a thing or two about tech, but alas, even now Outlook data is still stored in a single .pst file. Oh well.
iPhoto doesn't store your photos in a single database file. You're confused by the single icon; both the iPhoto app and its database are Packages, made up of thousands of files. Just right click on iPhoto Library in your Pictures folder and 'Show Package Contents' to navigate to the original files plus any that are modified. Or, more simply, you can just Reveal in Finder from within iPhoto to show the original file of a highlighted photo. Even if the iPhoto app itself became so corrupted that you couldn't open it, you would still be able to access all your photos.
Yes, this is true technically, and I'm aware that you can right-click the package to view the stored photos. I'm not sure though whether or not packages can get corrupted and prevent access to the content wrapped in it. One thing is certain though, managing your photos hidden under a package is sub-optimal. This is why I love Lightroom, it creates it's own photo catalog, but it stores your photo files in a regular folder structure, normally accessible wherever you choose to place them.
I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill. There's nothing particularly exciting about a Package. It's just a neat way of storing lots of data without having files and folders sprawled over the place; think of it like a smart folder. Packages are clever in that you can open an application by 'opening' the Package. There's no more chance of not being able to open a Package than there is a folder. Once you've 'unzipped' the Package, it's just a regular folder hierarchy, the same as Lightroom. A Package is not really an application; it may contain an application, though.
If you really want to see all your photos in iPhoto presented in a traditional folder hierarchy, the easiest way would probably be to Reveal in Finder one photo, then work to the top of the folder hierarchy in Finder and make an alias of that folder in the Sidebar. Voila; there's your 20th century folder structure. I wouldn't recommend it, because if you start moving photos around from the Finder, you can easily get confused with what's there and what isn't in iPhoto.
It doesn't sound as though you use iPhoto, but if I were you, I would wait for Photos to come out next year and see how you get on with it. The rumour is that it will be more of a cross between Aperture and iPhoto with much more extensibility, so there's a good chance that it would meet your overly-demanding needs.
I think I had a misconception of what a package is, thanks for explaining it. I keep my options open and when Photos is finally released I'll surely give it a try.
"iOS 8’s iPhoto to Photos app transition to ditch Journals, Books, and Slideshows"
Bummer!
Oddly enough, there were a number of folks posting in the original Aperture discontinuation thread that considered these "modules" in Lightroom "clunky" and undesirable.
I'm sticking to my original opinion that these "modules" should be created separately as apps/extensions/plugins to Photos... so good news for "moi" if we're keeping track of predictions and wild-eyed, pulled-out-of-your-fanny-pack guesses tally
I will admit it is sad that people won't be able to migrate their work without flattening it though
Also, a quick search for iOS slideshow, photo book, and journal apps turns up a ton of Top 25/50/100 lists. Imagine these apps now plugging a bit more seamlessly with Photos (possible fast-track updates with Swift and Core frameworks?), and you'll see that Apple is empowering it's devs rather than stealing eyeballs with built-in capabilities.
Well at least it's a positive way of looking at, or?
Comments
Have you seen this?
This update adds RAW image compatibility for the following cameras to Aperture 3 and iPhoto '11:
Canon PowerShot S100
Nikon 1 J1
Nikon 1 V1
Nikon COOLPIX P7100
Olympus PEN E-PL1s
Olympus PEN E-PL3
Olympus PEN E-PM1
Panasonic LUMIX DMC-FZ150
Sony Alpha NEX-5N
Sony Alpha SLT-A65
Sony Alpha SLT-A77
http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1473?viewlocale=en_US&locale=en_US
1. Good info
2. Your sig has been EOL'd
I'm "dreaming" again... but what if Apple was able to talk Sony into sticking a BT 4.0 chip into their cameras? Sony unarguably makes the very best all-round CMOS on the planet at the moment, even giving Nikon a leg up on Canon since they license them as well. Now include an app and/or extension for iOS that relays gps to the camera to be able to embed in meta data or EXIF. Now about that watch I've heard rumors about... that could also do the trick if paired with the camera
A note about meta data. I've been hoping for a long time that big developers like Adobe, MS or Google would start to use OpenMeta themselves (project page hosted on Google). Not only because Apple is using it, but it would be just plain awesome to have cross-platform meta data someday. It already is the basis for Spotlight and we all know since WWDC that Spotlight is going to be going big system-wide on OSX and iOS will use it as well. Any of the big guns that really want to get Apple fans to consider their offerings, would do well to make "antsy-pants switchers" decision a bit easier. Here's a list of Apple devs using OpenMeta inn their apps currently... which I'm sure isn't a complete up-to-date list. https://code.google.com/p/openmeta/wiki/OpenMetaApplications
One of the devs, Ironic Software has integrated OpenMeta in all of their apps for years and is a lobg-time Apple-only dev.. One of their apps I've played with for years now is Deep, a rather interesting way to search and find photos by color algorithms plus tags. It works rather well, although the UI is quirky and takes a bit of getting used to, I'm sure Apple could do wonders with it.
Oh my! I was missing something, because LT looks like something I could seriously make great use of(!)
One of those, "why didn't I think of that" moments! Love it!
Shouldn't single out Nikon, because they are all bad(!) I've wondered for years now why no other company can come close to Apple when designing user interfaces, even when when Apple is having a "Bad Icon Day"?!
Thanks for that! Read the whole thing and have it saved to Evernote for further reference. He talks from experience and knowledge, rather than my simplified guessing and dreaming. Sorry I don't have more time to put into research these days, but hey... I have a ton of Al Qaeda-device carrying people to help switch to iOS and stop being called terrorists*** :smokey:
*** Ouch! I'm just kidding! Really! Get off my a**! :rolleyes:
Thanks for the new sig
Sony doesn't do anything outside of Sony, only here to promote their own Memory Sticks and whatnot. Frucking Sony.
That looks as a viable option. Don't understand why there need to be so many standards; we already have so many to choose from¡
Very true!
Have you seen this?
This update adds RAW image compatibility for the following cameras to Aperture 3 and iPhoto '11:
...
Sony Alpha SLT-A77
http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1473?viewlocale=en_US&locale=en_US
Yup. That Aperture update was posted in 2011. The A77ii (aka A77M2) is pretty much an all-new camera that replaced the A77. It just came out about a month ago. The RAW format is not the same.Heh, I just checked Wikipedia for a release date, and the Sony Alpha article doesn't mention it at all, calling the A77 the "current flagship APS-C camera". LOL
What I meant to imply as that Apple may well just make it not work with a Yosemite update in a year, even without an actual need to, in its desire to create a larger base for Photos. Kind of cynical, I know, but Aperture users have a right to be cynical : )
I also am leaving the door open to Photos actually being able to do a lot pretty well. And if it takes 3rd party plugins that don't need to create TIFFs I'll be woodshedding with it for a while before turning my nose up at it. My cynicism comes a lot from my not being a huge fan of more of a percentage of many Apple programs (I even still call them programs intend of apps : o ) and updates that have been released for the past few years. Not enough to switch but a little sheen has come off for me.
It looks like a great opportunity for a third party to step in here. If Apple won't reverse there silly decision I'd like to see someone else have a go. Just no Adobe for me.
It's not as great of an opportunity as you might think due to lack of growth. The price model left in place by Adobe and Apple also isn't that desirable when you figure the amount of work. First raw processors are ridiculously labor intensive. You need to deal with interpolation, rasterization, noise (and sometimes banding) reduction, sharpening algorithms, and a lot of other things. Each camera model supported requires a basic input profile that describes it relative to an internal working space of either scene or output referred varieties. The manufacturers won't provide them, and aside from that they use different encodings and byte ordering, making it more work. To even support modern features such as lack of hard clamping on intermediate conversions or what might be considered true raw exposure compensation (compensation applied prior to full rasterization of data). All of this has to work across many raw formats without breaking or corrupting metadata from one version to the next. I think it's just too much hassle to survive as a standalone product at a really desirable level of fit and finish.
That's just the raw processing portion and does not include the issue of writing filters. These things are used for organization and archiving, which anyone would expect from a new application. Add in some budget for marketing to wrangle customers from the typical giants, and it gets even more excessive.
I can't see this on the Mac at all. The place where newer applications seem to thrive is on the idevices. Some of these packages could be done with far smaller codebases and sold to a broader range of customers. I think that on the Mac it's just asking for a flop.
These are all excellent points. Plus, doesn't even Apple have to reverse engineer new camera outputs to add compatibility?
I would add that we have already seen several commercial alternatives released and none have been really embraced by the RAW/DAM community. I would like to think that Apple exiting the niche leaves as opening to be filled (and we will pay $400 for a fantastic suite of tools that leaves nothing to be desired in either image management or editing), but I have a nagging feeling that if a 3rd party program didn't cause noticeable waves last year it's not going to start causing them this year, and I don't know of any on the horizon.
I see, new model. Well, Apple is always taking their time releasing RAW compatibility. I've read that Adobe does this 'in a more timely fashion'.
Indeed, they do need to reeves engineer it. And since the camera manufactures are the ones with their roots in this type of software, I would rather trust my RAW software from them then Apple. But since these manufactures are so bad at designing software I take my chances with Apple, and not the likes of Nikon.
But seeing RAW converted photos from Apple and Nikon side by side, there is a noticeable difference. And not in favour of Apple.
I like Ken for preferring jpg in that respect. Also, because he thinks people shouldn't be messing around with a photo after they're shot. Just do the photography thing before hitting the shutter button, and I tend to agree.
Yes I did. This is my first time to the rodeo.
Some alternatives for those who want to own their software:
Commercial
Open Source
I thought Adobe retained the option to use the older licensing model on Lightroom. I'll give a couple comments on these. Capture One is not that well optimized in some areas, but the raw processing quality is excellent. That goes for both Capture One Pro and the cheaper version. The software itself predated Adobe's raw processing capabilities. Darktable is great, but it's quirky and has a learning curve. It's not necessarily as polished, and it is updated when it's updated. The OSX version is a fork of the main project that I think is maintained by someone else. What I like about the open source stuff is that those projects are often faster to adopt newer workflows such as the use of floats for better precision and ability to output directly to linear float formats like EXR, which makes for a cleaner workflow if you are putting together something with an extended dynamic range.
These are all excellent points. Plus, doesn't even Apple have to reverse engineer new camera outputs to add compatibility?
I would add that we have already seen several commercial alternatives released and none have been really embraced by the RAW/DAM community. I would like to think that Apple exiting the niche leaves as opening to be filled (and we will pay $400 for a fantastic suite of tools that leaves nothing to be desired in either image management or editing), but I have a nagging feeling that if a 3rd party program didn't cause noticeable waves last year it's not going to start causing them this year, and I don't know of any on the horizon.
Well I do like some of the ones mentioned above, but they all have their quirks. It's very typical with raw processing software, presumably due to all of the variations. I disliked Aperture mostly due to the size of its libraries, but I definitely felt people went with Adobe for the easy learning curve, price, and due to marketing. These smaller companies and open source projects can't beat them in any of those areas, even if they can be more powerful in other areas. I recall some of the very early DAM tools. There was extensis portfolio and another that were big around the early 2000s. Capture One Pro was kind of the go to for processing. This meant you were out around $700~ or so to hit these two areas before adding in storage and backup solutions, which were more complicated to set up at the time. Adobe coming in around $200 was fantastic. They're also big enough to keep such a thing going at $99, as they would have done most of the engineering work for the camera raw plugin anyway. For a smaller company that is an enormous undertaking, especially when most camera manufacturers are not nice enough to release exact specifications. In fact some of the open source projects started with the use of disassembly tools to figure out the byte ordering for each camera. Even if you have that, you still need to create ICC profiles for the cameras, which is a difficult task in itself due to issues of metamerism on target colors. It just takes a lot of resources to do it well, and even Adobe obviously spent way more time tuning profiles for Canon and Nikon than other makes/models.
^ post
1. Good info
2. Your sig has been EOL'd
You should submit discombobschlobulated to the English dictionary.
I see some people here bashing Adobe, but I've got to say that, as a professional photographer, I've tried both iPhoto and Aperture and thought they were a nightmare.
iPhoto because it has a terrible file management system, locking all your photos into a single database file. If that file gets corrupted, it's bye bye.
Aperture because the amount of bugs were terrible to deal with. It would freeze, it would crash. Also, I had Aperture delete actual photos from my hard drive permanently, because of its complicated file management options.
Lightroom is the most reliable piece of software for handling my photos by a large margin, totally stable and very clear when it comes to deleting photos from the Lightroom catalog versus the actual photo on the hard drive. Not to mention it has probably the best algorithms in the market for photo adjustments.
If anything, it's Apple software I'm worried about when it comes to photography software.
iPhoto doesn't store your photos in a single database file. You're confused by the single icon; both the iPhoto app and its database are Packages, made up of thousands of files. Just right click on iPhoto Library in your Pictures folder and 'Show Package Contents' to navigate to the original files plus any that are modified. Or, more simply, you can just Reveal in Finder from within iPhoto to show the original file of a highlighted photo. Even if the iPhoto app itself became so corrupted that you couldn't open it, you would still be able to access all your photos.
Good info; enlightening the uninformed. This packaging BTW also helps backup software to only update the changes made to the files inside that package, not the whole thing.
It's similar to iOS apps; simply replace .ipa with .zip and decompress to see what's inside.
http://tinyurl.com/njy69fy (9to5 link)
"iOS 8’s iPhoto to Photos app transition to ditch Journals, Books, and Slideshows"
Bummer!
[IMG ALT=""]http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/46753/width/350/height/700[/IMG]
At one time, I think Outlook stored all its emails as a single file, which was ridiculous, as whenever you backed up, the whole file had to be overwritten, even if only one email had changed. Maybe it's changed now, but I use Mail, so don't know. It was also less than ideal for the reasons that Berna gave.
iPhoto doesn't store your photos in a single database file. You're confused by the single icon; both the iPhoto app and its database are Packages, made up of thousands of files. Just right click on iPhoto Library in your Pictures folder and 'Show Package Contents' to navigate to the original files plus any that are modified. Or, more simply, you can just Reveal in Finder from within iPhoto to show the original file of a highlighted photo. Even if the iPhoto app itself became so corrupted that you couldn't open it, you would still be able to access all your photos.
Yes, this is true technically, and I'm aware that you can right-click the package to view the stored photos. I'm not sure though whether or not packages can get corrupted and prevent access to the content wrapped in it. One thing is certain though, managing your photos hidden under a package is sub-optimal. This is why I love Lightroom, it creates it's own photo catalog, but it stores your photo files in a regular folder structure, normally accessible wherever you choose to place them.
You were hoping MS would learn a thing or two about tech, but alas, even now Outlook data is still stored in a single .pst file. Oh well.
I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill. There's nothing particularly exciting about a Package. It's just a neat way of storing lots of data without having files and folders sprawled over the place; think of it like a smart folder. Packages are clever in that you can open an application by 'opening' the Package. There's no more chance of not being able to open a Package than there is a folder. Once you've 'unzipped' the Package, it's just a regular folder hierarchy, the same as Lightroom. A Package is not really an application; it may contain an application, though.
If you really want to see all your photos in iPhoto presented in a traditional folder hierarchy, the easiest way would probably be to Reveal in Finder one photo, then work to the top of the folder hierarchy in Finder and make an alias of that folder in the Sidebar. Voila; there's your 20th century folder structure. I wouldn't recommend it, because if you start moving photos around from the Finder, you can easily get confused with what's there and what isn't in iPhoto.
It doesn't sound as though you use iPhoto, but if I were you, I would wait for Photos to come out next year and see how you get on with it. The rumour is that it will be more of a cross between Aperture and iPhoto with much more extensibility, so there's a good chance that it would meet your overly-demanding needs.
I think I had a misconception of what a package is, thanks for explaining it. I keep my options open and when Photos is finally released I'll surely give it a try.
Oddly enough, there were a number of folks posting in the original Aperture discontinuation thread that considered these "modules" in Lightroom "clunky" and undesirable.
I'm sticking to my original opinion that these "modules" should be created separately as apps/extensions/plugins to Photos... so good news for "moi" if we're keeping track of predictions and wild-eyed, pulled-out-of-your-fanny-pack guesses tally
I will admit it is sad that people won't be able to migrate their work without flattening it though
Also, a quick search for iOS slideshow, photo book, and journal apps turns up a ton of Top 25/50/100 lists. Imagine these apps now plugging a bit more seamlessly with Photos (possible fast-track updates with Swift and Core frameworks?), and you'll see that Apple is empowering it's devs rather than stealing eyeballs with built-in capabilities.
Well at least it's a positive way of looking at, or?