Seriously, iPhoto, Photostream, and iPhoto Cloud have terrible UX. Just like iTunes. Apple hasn't learned a thing about UX when it comes to that. It keeps ignoring that iTunes was a bad idea. Calling it "backup your iPhone" was flatly untrue. Apple should be sued for providing false impression that backing up iPhone would duplicate everything on iPhone. I've lost data because of that.
Photostream - all photos taken with iOS are streamed to the cloud, right? But hear this - it does not count against your iCloud storage! What the heck?
And now with the iCloud photo, does it count against your iCloud since it says iCloud?
And where are the photos on my Mac? Oh wait, I have to use iPhoto?!?! Why?!?! I Don't want that crappy app at all. I want a dropbox-like interface where "photostream" or whatever is treated as a storage, not as an app. I don't want "libarires" which forces me to open an app to access to libraries.
On iPhoto, I see "Shared/iCloud" - does it mean I am sharing my photos to the public? It doesn't say.
Seriously, I can go ranting about HOW horrible the UX is. Apple has totally lost its edge in UX innovation. the iOS7 design is horrible. It's confusing. It's more cognitive burden. The contrasts are bad. The fonts too thin and so on. I had to use accessibility to make it more contrasty and more bold. iOS 7 is a disaster. We need a touch of skeumorphism in everyday computing. We are not digital. We're analog products living in analog universe and we need to see resemblance and intuition in devices. iOS7 completely ignores that.
I am at the point where I am questioning my choice in Apple products lately. It seems to achieve nothing but more frustration for me. Mac mini is now using soldered RAM thus costing more. UX has gotten much worse. And they're just getting as bad as Windows so what's the point of using an Apple product if I am getting irritated lately with Apple products as I have with Windows... only that Windows is cheaper.
I agree with this. Apple has lost its way lately by concentrating on bringing out more and more updated hardware but not focussing on their loyal users and making the software work.
for example after moving to Yosemite my iCloud albums in both iPhoto and Aperture did not fully synch and still have not. I had 15,600 photos and only 11,300 have synched. I know that they are there as they are accessible ( all 15,600 ) on my iPad.
In addition one album which did not fully synch has about 1,000 blank spaces where photos should be.
the new photos may or may not synch to Photo stream. It's hit or miss.
I have reloaded Yosemite, repaired the libraries, checked permissions etc etc etc. but nothing works.
I have asked but have had no replies from Apple.
I just hope that sometime, magically, the photos synch and I have all of them properly displayed in their albums.
A 4 day old thread, but I thought me reviewing Adobe Lightroom may be of interest to other people besides [@]digitalclips[/@]. Perhaps [@]ThePixelDoc[/@] has time to read, if interested...
Well, I tried LR. In all it's a solid product, but that's to be expected from a company who's in the business for a long time, have the funds to get the right employees and their branding for marketing.
1. I've disabled 'Backup automatically' in the prefs, as I'm working on a copy of an Aperture library. 2. Downloaded the Aperture import plug-in from Adobe 3. Started LR, went to File > Plugin Extra's > Aperture plugin and LR immediately popped a panel with "Checking Aperture Library" No Way To Stop It. So I waited 15 minutes (!) on my current library 120GB and after it had done scanning it I was able to select a different library (I exported a project as a new library for testing LR) 4. Disk space is displayed in MB, WITHOUT thousand separators. I don't like that, not easily read. 5. Panels can be behind other panels, thusly only showing a part (no QA dept @ Adobe¿) 6. Kicked off the import, a 7000 photos lib, and it looks like it needs one second per import. They are _versions_ not masters, because their website informs us: Information that is not imported into Lightroom: Image adjustments Smart Albums Face Tag Region of Interest (face naming tags are mapped to keywords) Color Labels (other than optionally as keywords) Stacks (other than optionally as keywords) Any kind of creation (books, web galleries, etc) other than the collections that correspond to them source: http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2014/10/aperture-import-plugin-now-available.html#comment-197341 7. Got a popup: "Enable reverse geocoding?" Lightroom can automatically determine the city, state, and country of any photo tagged with a location. To do this, Lightroom needs to send GPS coordinates to Google Maps. No other data will be sent and Adobe does not have access to the information exchanged between Lightroom and Google.
Allow Lightroom to send GPS coordinates to Google Maps to look up addresses?"
It will fill in the names of the City, State & Country in the appropriate IPTC fields. This way one can make smart albums with the criteria set to these names. Quite clever, and I would like for Apple to implement this into Aperture as well. Wait... 8. Import took 50 minutes on my 7,000 photos, and the result is a bit weird: it has created a folder structure by date as well as our Aperture project folder names, including ay subfolders.
Well, LR is an ok tool. All the obvious things needed for photography are there: adjustments, different ways of displaying, a map view (data from Google), Book, Slideshow, Print, Web, it has it all. I understand people call the interface clunky, but it's not a big issue for me: it's simply different. Yep, not as polished as what Apple creates, but no software company does it like they do. The interface is a bit archaic: photos in grid view are displayed within a grey square, making it look like they are negatives / projector slides. Looks dumb. And old.
But ok, LR gets the job done, also on videos. Lift and stamp is there, batch change stuff. Reverse Geo tagging - the lot. The histogram looks awkward, seemingly blending in RGB with CYMK, resulting in a 7-colour histogram.
If Photos from Apple next year won't live up to peoples expectations and they don't want to wait for developers to create their beloved plugins this LR from Adobe may be just the replacement tool for Aperture users. Then again, Aperture won't quit working, so people can keep on using it to their hearts content.
Me? I just look forward to what Photos has to offer and will keep Aperture on my machine, even if Photos does what I want it to do.
[@]PhilBoogie[/@] - Thanks for taking the time to write up a review of the process and your first impressions!
A couple of notes:
1) as an everyday LR user I have to say that your review is more than fair(!) I've never quite understood the "clunky" description given by many users, considering a) everything is laid out in one easy window and organized in, functions and tabs, which I personally like; b) you can arrange the tabs and the entire interface to suit your workflow; c) just about everything has a keyboard shortcut to really zip around from one view or edit function to the next.
2) I always advice to take a look at the shortcuts, a quick look through the View menu and an AdobeTV or YouTube video or 2 before jumping in.
3) It would be nice if Adobe acknowledged that Apple users on newer versions of OSX have the very capable built in Maps app for GEO tagging, so I agree with your snark(!)
4) Your critique about the lack of polish of Adobe software is one that resonates with me as well... since I've been in a many year battle and post after post at Adobe Forums for niggly things like decimal points and function panels that work differently across their suite of apps. There IS no good reason or excuse for it any longer.*** Adobe has owned and developed the apps long enough to have a cohesive GUI across the suite... especially the publishing apps.
5) Naturally the biggest complaint I would have is that all photo edits are lost(!) This alone makes the conversion a half-assed attempt leaving most people with just a new fancy folder structure and collection aggregator, with a few keyword and IPTC imports that make it look like Adobe went through the motions as they so often do. I maintain it IS POSSIBLE to convert photo edits across the apps, Adobe just isn't making the effort. This has always been the case with them.
6) at the end of the day.... I would still have to say that we need to be patient and wait and see what Apple has planned. No guessing, no rumors... I want to see and test the new ?Photos before I make any recommendations to convert any libraries, whether iPhoto or Aperture, to Lightroom.
*** This is kind of a back door comment, but in all of my enthusiasm and trust that the ?Watch will be a success.... there is that small nagging itch in the back of my head, that tells me it could be a "F*** up" due to one arrogant person that I have been at odds with for years when he was CTO at Adobe: Kevin Lynch. Who if you're not aware is on the ?Watch team and did the hands-on presentation during the event. I try to be a good and forgiving person.... and even stepped back from some of my personal vicious comments about him, but HE and HE alone is the reason why Adobe is STILL messed up in many areas to this day. HIS decisions have affected my (and 1000's of designer's) health more than a few times.... so how ironic is it that he's now a part of the hardware/software team that may monitor that damaged health in the near future???? :err:
Thanks again for "calling" me up to read your review(!)
1) as an everyday LR user I have to say that your review is more than fair(!) I've never quite understood the "clunky" description given by many users, considering a) everything is laid out in one easy window and organized in, functions and tabs, which I personally like; b) you can arrange the tabs and the entire interface to suit your workflow; c) just about everything has a keyboard shortcut to really zip around from one view or edit function to the next.
2) I always advice to take a look at the shortcuts, a quick look through the View menu and an AdobeTV or YouTube video or 2 before jumping in.
I agree; it may look clunky (because it wasn't designed by Apple[?]) but it really looks like most photo management / adjustment tools. The keyboard shortcuts are pretty good, meaning i like they mostly use single keys, albeit not for all obvious modifications: rotating is ?[ and ?] but the usual suspects use the usual suspect keys:
3) It would be nice if Adobe acknowledged that Apple users on newer versions of OSX have the very capable built in Maps app for GEO tagging, so I agree with your snark(!)
Hehe, I think I come across as snarky quite often. Oh well...at least that isn't my goal; I merely want to point out my view on a topic, trying to make it crystal clear.
4) Your critique about the lack of polish of Adobe software is one that resonates with me as well... since I've been in a many year battle and post after post at Adobe Forums for niggly things like decimal points and function panels that work differently across their suite of apps. There IS no good reason or excuse for it any longer.*** Adobe has owned and developed the apps long enough to have a cohesive GUI across the suite... especially the publishing apps.
Couldn't they create a single API for all teams to use? Something like: "oh, we need a GPS location panel" Colleague: "Well, it's part of this single API the GUI designers made for all apps so grab that GPS part of the design and implement it in Bridge/LR/Photoshop..." Not only would the benefit be that it's a 'write once, use everywhere' but it also makes newer versions stay consistent across all their software. I don't know if it's feasible; I'm not a software developer.
5) Naturally the biggest complaint I would have is that all photo edits are lost(!) This alone makes the conversion a half-assed attempt leaving most people with just a new fancy folder structure and collection aggregator, with a few keyword and IPTC imports that make it look like Adobe went through the motions as they so often do. I maintain it IS POSSIBLE to convert photo edits across the apps, Adobe just isn't making the effort. This has always been the case with them.
That doesn't sound good; 'always being the case that they don't make the effort'. But would it really be possible? I looked inside the Aperture.library package with my photos and do see the 'Versions' folder with:
Master.apmaster
Version-0.apversion
Version-1.apversion
nevermind: that IS INDEED possible: the .apversion is simply a .plist file, easily read by text edit if you change the extension. So, looks like Adobe is being lazy indeed.
6) at the end of the day.... I would still have to say that we need to be patient and wait and see what Apple has planned. No guessing, no rumors... I want to see and test the new ?Photos before I make any recommendations to convert any libraries, whether iPhoto or Aperture, to Lightroom.
QFT. Plus it's not like Aperture will stop working all of a sudden. Perhaps the Photos v1.0 won't live up to peoples expectations (which would be a crying shame as they made us wait for a VERY long time; I really don't get what the problem is here) but they will get plugins for missing features and a v1 release usually gets Apples attention to do right with updates.
...Kevin Lynch...
Cool info. Plus: "oh dear" Your health? I presume there were excruciating 'features' in their products(?) I like [to use] that word, excruciating.
Well, peace out, as they say. I'll try LR some more, see if it 'fits the bill' but migrate away from Aperture until well after Photos has been released; I really don't want to mess around with something that works just fine for my needs. Besides, photography is a hobby of mine, not my profession.
Seriously, iPhoto, Photostream, and iPhoto Cloud have terrible UX. Just like iTunes. Apple hasn't learned a thing about UX when it comes to that. It keeps ignoring that iTunes was a bad idea. Calling it "backup your iPhone" was flatly untrue. Apple should be sued for providing false impression that backing up iPhone would duplicate everything on iPhone. I've lost data because of that.
Photostream - all photos taken with iOS are streamed to the cloud, right? But hear this - it does not count against your iCloud storage! What the heck?
And now with the iCloud photo, does it count against your iCloud since it says iCloud?
And where are the photos on my Mac? Oh wait, I have to use iPhoto?!?! Why?!?! I Don't want that crappy app at all. I want a dropbox-like interface where "photostream" or whatever is treated as a storage, not as an app. I don't want "libarires" which forces me to open an app to access to libraries.
On iPhoto, I see "Shared/iCloud" - does it mean I am sharing my photos to the public? It doesn't say.
Seriously, I can go ranting about HOW horrible the UX is. Apple has totally lost its edge in UX innovation. the iOS7 design is horrible. It's confusing. It's more cognitive burden. The contrasts are bad. The fonts too thin and so on. I had to use accessibility to make it more contrasty and more bold. iOS 7 is a disaster. We need a touch of skeumorphism in everyday computing. We are not digital. We're analog products living in analog universe and we need to see resemblance and intuition in devices. iOS7 completely ignores that.
I am at the point where I am questioning my choice in Apple products lately. It seems to achieve nothing but more frustration for me. Mac mini is now using soldered RAM thus costing more. UX has gotten much worse. And they're just getting as bad as Windows so what's the point of using an Apple product if I am getting irritated lately with Apple products as I have with Windows... only that Windows is cheaper.
Apple doesn't do everything perfectly. Just continue to use Dropbox and quit complaining.
I agree; it may look clunky (because it wasn't designed by Apple[?]) but it really looks like most photo management / adjustment tools. The keyboard shortcuts are pretty good, meaning i like they mostly use single keys, albeit not for all obvious modifications: rotating is ?[ and ?] but the usual suspects use the usual suspect keys:
I couldn't live without a keyboard macro utility. Used QuicKeys for years, then iKey, and now for the last few years Keyboard Maestro. In the very old days I used ResEdit mostly to reassign keyboard shortcuts (and a better translation many times for dialog fields... with a few jokes thrown in ) It's nice that *some* Adobe programs give you the opportunity to reassign shortcuts, but not all do, and often the ones I want to change or add are not available. The nicest thing about a keyboard manager though is to string multiple commands together into one shortcut. I used to be able to do final layouts and separations of any size with crop marks to my liking with only a few shortcuts in the FreeHand days. I liked to show this off with my eyes closed just for fun. Anyway, acknowledging and using shortcuts in any way is a "plus" in my book and separates the newbies from the power-users.
Hehe, I think I come across as snarky quite often. Oh well...at least that isn't my goal; I merely want to point out my view on a topic, trying to make it crystal clear. Couldn't they create a single API for all teams to use? Something like: "oh, we need a GPS location panel" Colleague: "Well, it's part of this single API the GUI designers made for all apps so grab that GPS part of the design and implement it in Bridge/LR/Photoshop..." Not only would the benefit be that it's a 'write once, use everywhere' but it also makes newer versions stay consistent across all their software. I don't know if it's feasible; I'm not a software developer.
^^^ Bold ^^^ Exactly what I've been barking about for years! Coordinated and synced API's and frameworks. Yes it's possible, but of course it also means a lot of man hours and dedication to rip out the legacy and rewrite the unified code from the ground up. That's what I expect from a CTO executive, and a company that looks into the future, rather than placating it's present day users with hacked-n-tacked-on new features. I used to think it was fear on Adobe's part for not upsetting the designers and folks that use it's products daily. It's well known that they hate change just as much as MS Office users.... or even many of the Apple users that have come into using Apple products over the last few years. However Adobe went ahead with the much hated subscription only model that showed they're too big and powerful and have no fear, which was jumping off the cliff (metaphorically) and far more "brave" than a few code changes that would sync something like character and paragraph styles (one of many functions that NEED to be synced by now!) across applications.
That doesn't sound good; 'always being the case that they don't make the effort'. But would it really be possible? I looked inside the Aperture.library package with my photos and do see the 'Versions' folder with:
Master.apmaster
Version-0.apversion
Version-1.apversion
nevermind: that IS INDEED possible: the .apversion is simply a .plist file, easily read by text edit if you change the extension. So, looks like Adobe is being lazy indeed.
BINGO! RAW file definitions are determined and written by the camera makers. In order to tap into the power of RAW editing, each and every software developer has to write a GUI to effect the pixels of the RAW data from the camera/lens and sensor combo the pixels came from. For example: +/-1 EV will (and should!) always give the same results regardless of software used. It is to be expected that special "feature edits" such as gradient masking, or any advanced editing features found only as a function of a certain editing package, would not be possible to be cross-converted. Very similar to Adobe's own software that won't allow a PSD or Illustrator file to be opened with older versions with all edits intact.
That does not mean though that edits such as those in the first Basic Develop panel of Lightroom... all of which have Aperture equivalents, should not be transferred. Pure laziness on Adobe's part, and probably due to the fact that if Photos or any other app comes out... or is out.... that would like to pull in LR users, the "cat would be out of the bag" (<<cute pun!) that it could be as easy as writing scripts to rewrite the (basically) text files to re-import into your editor of choice.
QFT. Plus it's not like Aperture will stop working all of a sudden. Perhaps the Photos v1.0 won't live up to peoples expectations (which would be a crying shame as they made us wait for a VERY long time; I really don't get what the problem is here) but they will get plugins for missing features and a v1 release usually gets Apples attention to do right with updates.
I vociferously maintain, that photography, photos and their editing and management is THE most important *new* area of interest that Apple needs to get right, and show a new and easier... yet powerful way... to do it all. Coupled with the power of Apple's home-grown processors and sensors/lens from Sony, and cloud-sync, the iPhone 7 is gonna be a true point-n-shoot "killer" and DSLR "creative alternative". It will need GREAT future-thinking software to manage the creations coming from the iP7, but also from the other legacy gear we still want to use if the occasion arises that it will be the better choice for the project at hand.
***** See my Wish List at the bottom *******
A paragraph that buttresses my opinion above that I was going to delete, but well...
Music is fragmented and losing money; film content and the push into the living rooms is also fragmented and the power (content) is and will be in the hands of others to control it for a long time; wearables are "interesting" to work on for more power and connectivity in the future with all of our devices and identity security. This leaves the one thing that all people control themselves and are the main creators thereof... the copyright holders if you will... a HUGE market of photographers from Snapshot/Selfie-shooters to Pros, on everything from iPhones/iPads to expensive DSLRs and video cams... all up for grabs.
Many of us have stuck with Apple even through the "lost years" of the late 90's to mid '00s because Apple was (and still is!) the creative's platform of choice, and the very best one to be honest. Apple has in the past worked with the leading and largest provider of graphic design software, only to be let down on many occasion, and to be even drawn into fights about future platforms (Flash!), where Adobe and then CTO's were blind to where we were / are heading in graphic power and processing, especially on mobiles.
There is no better time for Apple to quit waiting for Adobe and to stop looking up to them.
Adobe's flagship reason for being... and quite honestly, a software package that *has* set the bar for all software of any kind is Photoshop, that over the last few versions, has decided it wants to be anything other than a "photo editing application", and rather a website creator, film editor, and social cloud aggregator. With Adobe Photoshop Lightroom (its complete true name), Adobe THINKS they're being innovative with their push to mobilize their software, with partners like Microsoft, and also dev'ing for Chrome/Android for "platform independence". What it truly means is that they're caving to the lowest common denominator in APIs, frameworks and design. Apple on the other hand KNOWS where they're going, what advancements in processors and sensors are available and coming soon, and developing the software to make use of the future chips, not yesterdays. That's why I expect something ground-breaking from them.
And quite honestly.... I expect the very same derision from pundits, bloggers and users alike when the new ?Photos hits, just as they did with the "old school" non-linear video editors when Apple re-imaged and built from the ground up for the future, Final Cut Pro. Because I truly believe that Apple will come out with something so new, so expandable, and so "almost there but not quite"... that it will create fear in the other software providers. It will not be complete, but will be built upon *frameworks* that will be so powerful and capable from day 1, that devs will go wild over it and "the light at the end of the tunnel" of where it's heading is but a glowing spec of dust in the far distance, only visible to those that like to look out that far.
Those that are interested in seeing software and workflows evolve, will jump on board and discover hints of the future and be excited about it and possibly help to make the future appear faster than a linear timeline. While those that are stuck in their ways and only see what's in front of them today, will voice their blind opinions to what they see... and wont give a second's thought to what lays ahead in the future of the software at hand.
Cool info. Plus: "oh dear" Your health? I presume there were excruciating 'features' in their products(?) I like [to use] that word, excruciating.
Well, converting a few million Freehand files and getting every single designer I met or worked with to move over to Illustrator (a little less than 100) was not the most enjoyable, or healthy time of my life. Trying to explain it, teach it, and deal with the fact that FH was better... but dead...was VERY "excruciating" and in many ways still is to this day.
Well, peace out, as they say. I'll try LR some more, see if it 'fits the bill' but migrate away from Aperture until well after Photos has been released; I really don't want to mess around with something that works just fine for my needs. Besides, photography is a hobby of mine, not my profession.
Keep on trying LR, there's some good things there and yes, you can process 100% just about any photo without needing to ever jump into Photoshop. Even cloning out objects, "spot repair", and localized masked adjustments. If anything is truly needed it is layers within LR. That would make it really powerful.
But again.... I'm thinking and betting that Apple can also see what LR and of course Aperture could do better, and I wouldn't bet against them that they have the chops to pull it off. Even though realistically.... I'm not expecting perfection from version 1.0.
Have a great Sunday!
...and it was! Back to the grind before the big holidays.
Take care.... and my apologies for such a long post(!) I do get carried away on the subject, and am a terrible editor(!!!)
***** Wish List for ?Photos *****
Apart from editing, which I don't expect to be very groundbreaking at all, my main concern is "management".
1) a hybrid library approach, that includes edits... but also exposes itself to the Finder and Spotlight for tagging (keywords) and manual grouping of "project collections", both within ?Photos and/or from the desktop.
For example: Albums and Collections are nothing more than grouped aliases to original photos. You can make your own manual or Smart "collections" of anything today, by just giving it a unique "tag", or drag-dropping aliases to a folder of your choice. Possibility in Photos 1: 85%
+++ And/Or +++
2) making use of extended EXIF, IPTC and OpenMeta data holders, and writing keywords, tags, and just about any and all additional photo info except edits, directly to the images themselves... both RAW and child derivatives. Only at the "sharing" part of the process should the ability to include all or a subset of meta data be asked to be included. Possibility: 50% (?)
Just think, star rating, drag-n-drop keywords + collections/albums.... from the desktop, iOS *or* ?Photos.... synced auto-magically where-ever that photo goes because the info is embedded in the photo.... and not only within a proprietary library.
This gets really interesting when coupled with iCloud and iWork projects. Imagine opening a photo or just viewing one on the desktop, and being able to see exactly which project(s) are using the very same photo. Click on "one" of the "Project Collection" link on the photo, and all of the photos appear, as well as the Pages, Numbers, or Keynote documents that incorporate it. Each photo could be in many projects, albums, or collections... and also have "children" derivatives. They could also have been shared on Facebook, Twitter, or Tumblr blogs, that would show the date they were shared. Click on the date, and voila... all of the pictures shared on that day.
Suffice it to say, meta data *IMHO* is the most important addition that any software developer could add for cloud, device and application independence for future computing. I'm hoping that Apple does this big, and works off of their Spotlight, Siri, and FCP advances in "tagging" to make it happen.
This post is huge.... and I have to stop now. Once again.... apologies! Have a great week getting through this post.... :smokey:
Fully agree. And with Photography software it is only easier with single letters as opposed to a combo key, like Cmd, shift or Ctrl.
Coordinated and synced API's and frameworks...
So it IS possible. Well, maybe there is a future for me in Functional Dsign, or a CTO after all. I do dream up stuff like like this, but have no idea who to speak to in order to get the right person to follow up on my ideas. Oh wel.
RAW file definitions are determined and written by the camera makers. In order to tap into the power of RAW editing, each and every software developer has to write a GUI to effect the pixels of the RAW data from the camera/lens and sensor combo the pixels came from. For example: +/-1 EV will (and should!) always give the same results regardless of software used. It is to be expected that special "feature edits" such as gradient masking, or any advanced editing features found only as a function of a certain editing package, would not be possible to be cross-converted. Very similar to Adobe's own software that won't allow a PSD or Illustrator file to be opened with older versions with all edits intact.
While I do know this, I find it strange that RAW files look quite a bit different depending on which software one uses. I tend to agree with Ken Rockwell on this subject, in that the manufacturer knows the most about photography and their RAW definition files (or whatever it's called) would reproduce the photo best on your computer as opposed to a software company like Apple or Adobe who know 'nothing about photography'.
That does not mean though that edits such as those in the first Basic Develop panel of Lightroom... all of which have Aperture equivalents, should not be transferred. Pure laziness on Adobe's part, and probably due to the fact that if Photos or any other app comes out... or is out.... that would like to pull in LR users, the "cat would be out of the bag" (<<cute pun!) that it could be as easy as writing scripts to rewrite the (basically) text files to re-import into your editor of choice.
Uhm, in the words of Jeremy Clarkson, "How hard can it be?"
I'm really stumpified, no, flabbergasted, no, lost for words as to why a company like Adobe doesn't put in the effort to make this translation from a .plist file to their own format work. I mean, they wrot a migration tool, going from Aperture to LR and all we got is a tool that 1) isn't optimised, see my earlier post on the topic and 2) is merely outputting versions from Aperture and putting them into folders with the corresponding Project names. I mean, a 6 year old can do that. Adobe, really! Some would say that "for a stupid company they sure do dumb things".
I vociferously maintain, that photography, photos and their editing and management is THE most important *new* area of interest that Apple needs to get right, and show a new and easier... yet powerful way... to do it all. Coupled with the power of Apple's home-grown processors and sensors/lens from Sony, and cloud-sync, the iPhone 7 is gonna be a true point-n-shoot "killer" and DSLR "creative alternative". It will need GREAT future-thinking software to manage the creations coming from the iP7, but also from the other legacy gear we still want to use if the occasion arises that it will be the better choice for the project at hand.
Well I don't know if Apple agrees with you, but I do hope they will give photography, both in hardware and in software, their undecided attention. Aperture has been put on the backburner, iPhoto I don't know, they killed iPhoto on iOS and there are some serious issues with the iOS8 Photos app.
From what I understand the Photos application on OS X will work in perfect congruence with iOS and I expect nothing less. The more I think about Photos the higher I'm setting my expectations, and that's not a good thing. Though, honestly, kinda their own doing. If the application wasn't ready for realise together with 10.10 they, no, skip that, they really should've released Photos last summer. There is no excuse for having everyone to linger on with the current situation where things, gees, I'm rambling, and my friends' kids need attending (I'm tonight's babysitter). I'll finish responding to your epistle when I don't have these 3 little Mormons running around like they want to have the sitter arrested for not giving them their deserved undecided attention.
Music is fragmented and losing money; film content and the push into the living rooms is also fragmented and the power (content) is and will be in the hands of others to control it for a long time; wearables are "interesting" to work on for more power and connectivity in the future with all of our devices and identity security. This leaves the one thing that all people control themselves and are the main creators thereof... the copyright holders if you will... a HUGE market of photographers from Snapshot/Selfie-shooters to Pros, on everything from iPhones/iPads to expensive DSLRs and video cams... all up for grabs.
Interesting view! Yes, photography is massively increasing, making even photographers like Martin Parr wonder why we take all the photos that we do. We will need solid software to handle the every increasing photo sharing/uploading/backing up/tagging more than ever. I wonder where photography will take us. Perhaps being able to take a picture of the earth from a plane? A picture of the underwater world, taken from a boat, without even having to dive into the water? Would it be possible to take a picture around a corner instead of a straight line?
Many of us have stuck with Apple even through the "lost years" of the late 90's to mid '00s because Apple was (and still is!) the creative's platform of choice, and the very best one to be honest. Apple has in the past worked with the leading and largest provider of graphic design software, only to be let down on many occasion, and to be even drawn into fights about future platforms (Flash!), where Adobe and then CTO's were blind to where we were / are heading in graphic power and processing, especially on mobiles.
There is no better time for Apple to quit waiting for Adobe and to stop looking up to them.
Adobe's flagship reason for being... and quite honestly, a software package that *has* set the bar for all software of any kind is Photoshop, that over the last few versions, has decided it wants to be anything other than a "photo editing application", and rather a website creator, film editor, and social cloud aggregator. With Adobe Photoshop Lightroom (its complete true name), Adobe THINKS they're being innovative with their push to mobilize their software, with partners like Microsoft, and also dev'ing for Chrome/Android for "platform independence". What it truly means is that they're caving to the lowest common denominator in APIs, frameworks and design. Apple on the other hand KNOWS where they're going, what advancements in processors and sensors are available and coming soon, and developing the software to make use of the future chips, not yesterdays. That's why I expect something ground-breaking from them.
So you are saying that Photoshop has become bloated, not focused on purely photography, and the way people want to manipulate their images? I wouldn't know as I don't use any of Adobe's products, other than taking LR for a test flight. But at least they have an iPad app. More on that later as I just installed it and I have some... issues with the mobile app.
And quite honestly.... I expect the very same derision from pundits, bloggers and users alike when the new ?Photos hits, just as they did with the "old school" non-linear video editors when Apple re-imaged and built from the ground up for the future, Final Cut Pro. Because I truly believe that Apple will come out with something so new, so expandable, and so "almost there but not quite"... that it will create fear in the other software providers. It will not be complete, but will be built upon *frameworks* that will be so powerful and capable from day 1, that devs will go wild over it and "the light at the end of the tunnel" of where it's heading is but a glowing spec of dust in the far distance, only visible to those that like to look out that far.
I really hope the new Photos application will be a home run. And since they're taking their time, quite a lot of time actually, I would expect it to be fully feature laden. But seeing the difference between iPhoto on iOS and the default Photos app on iOS8 now I am wary of the new desktop Photos. I really hope we will get most of the features Aperture has to offer now. But since they themselves told the world that people would be able to easily migrate to LR I think they want to dumb the new Photos down, so all features are in sync between iOS and OSX. And while that is a good thing (it just works and all that) I think we won;t be getting any "import .gpx track and aline your photos on the track" kind of features)
Keep on trying LR, there's some good things there and yes, you can process 100% just about any photo without needing to ever jump into Photoshop. Even cloning out objects, "spot repair", and localized masked adjustments. If anything is truly needed it is layers within LR. That would make it really powerful.
I will indeed. Curiosity has taken control.
***** Wish List for ?Photos *****
Apart from editing, which I don't expect to be very groundbreaking at all, my main concern is "management".
1) a hybrid library approach, that includes edits... but also exposes itself to the Finder and Spotlight for tagging (keywords) and manual grouping of "project collections", both within ?Photos and/or from the desktop.
For example: Albums and Collections are nothing more than grouped aliases to original photos. You can make your own manual or Smart "collections" of anything today, by just giving it a unique "tag", or drag-dropping aliases to a folder of your choice. Possibility in Photos 1: 85%
+++ And/Or +++
2) making use of extended EXIF, IPTC and OpenMeta data holders, and writing keywords, tags, and just about any and all additional photo info except edits, directly to the images themselves... both RAW and child derivatives. Only at the "sharing" part of the process should the ability to include all or a subset of meta data be asked to be included. Possibility: 50% (?)
Just think, star rating, drag-n-drop keywords + collections/albums.... from the desktop, iOS *or* ?Photos.... synced auto-magically where-ever that photo goes because the info is embedded in the photo.... and not only within a proprietary library.
This gets really interesting when coupled with iCloud and iWork projects. Imagine opening a photo or just viewing one on the desktop, and being able to see exactly which project(s) are using the very same photo. Click on "one" of the "Project Collection" link on the photo, and all of the photos appear, as well as the Pages, Numbers, or Keynote documents that incorporate it. Each photo could be in many projects, albums, or collections... and also have "children" derivatives. They could also have been shared on Facebook, Twitter, or Tumblr blogs, that would show the date they were shared. Click on the date, and voila... all of the pictures shared on that day.
Suffice it to say, meta data *IMHO* is the most important addition that any software developer could add for cloud, device and application independence for future computing. I'm hoping that Apple does this big, and works off of their Spotlight, Siri, and FCP advances in "tagging" to make it happen.
Metadata, indeed, a must. Why the file size isn't shown by default in LR is beyond me. Not an issue when photos are stored on HDD, but I'm keeping them all on SSD, and then it does matter, a lot actually.
As to your wish list, here's mine for Aperture, written in April:
Comments
Seriously, they made such as mess of iPhoto and photostreams, I hope Photos for Mac will be much better.
Seriously, iPhoto, Photostream, and iPhoto Cloud have terrible UX. Just like iTunes. Apple hasn't learned a thing about UX when it comes to that. It keeps ignoring that iTunes was a bad idea. Calling it "backup your iPhone" was flatly untrue. Apple should be sued for providing false impression that backing up iPhone would duplicate everything on iPhone. I've lost data because of that.
Photostream - all photos taken with iOS are streamed to the cloud, right? But hear this - it does not count against your iCloud storage! What the heck?
And now with the iCloud photo, does it count against your iCloud since it says iCloud?
And where are the photos on my Mac? Oh wait, I have to use iPhoto?!?! Why?!?! I Don't want that crappy app at all. I want a dropbox-like interface where "photostream" or whatever is treated as a storage, not as an app. I don't want "libarires" which forces me to open an app to access to libraries.
On iPhoto, I see "Shared/iCloud" - does it mean I am sharing my photos to the public? It doesn't say.
Seriously, I can go ranting about HOW horrible the UX is. Apple has totally lost its edge in UX innovation. the iOS7 design is horrible. It's confusing. It's more cognitive burden. The contrasts are bad. The fonts too thin and so on. I had to use accessibility to make it more contrasty and more bold. iOS 7 is a disaster. We need a touch of skeumorphism in everyday computing. We are not digital. We're analog products living in analog universe and we need to see resemblance and intuition in devices. iOS7 completely ignores that.
I am at the point where I am questioning my choice in Apple products lately. It seems to achieve nothing but more frustration for me. Mac mini is now using soldered RAM thus costing more. UX has gotten much worse. And they're just getting as bad as Windows so what's the point of using an Apple product if I am getting irritated lately with Apple products as I have with Windows... only that Windows is cheaper.
I agree with this. Apple has lost its way lately by concentrating on bringing out more and more updated hardware but not focussing on their loyal users and making the software work.
for example after moving to Yosemite my iCloud albums in both iPhoto and Aperture did not fully synch and still have not. I had 15,600 photos and only 11,300 have synched. I know that they are there as they are accessible ( all 15,600 ) on my iPad.
In addition one album which did not fully synch has about 1,000 blank spaces where photos should be.
the new photos may or may not synch to Photo stream. It's hit or miss.
I have reloaded Yosemite, repaired the libraries, checked permissions etc etc etc. but nothing works.
I have asked but have had no replies from Apple.
I just hope that sometime, magically, the photos synch and I have all of them properly displayed in their albums.
I don't hold my breath.
Well, I tried LR. In all it's a solid product, but that's to be expected from a company who's in the business for a long time, have the funds to get the right employees and their branding for marketing.
1. I've disabled 'Backup automatically' in the prefs, as I'm working on a copy of an Aperture library.
2. Downloaded the Aperture import plug-in from Adobe
3. Started LR, went to File > Plugin Extra's > Aperture plugin and LR immediately popped a panel with "Checking Aperture Library" No Way To Stop It. So I waited 15 minutes (!) on my current library 120GB and after it had done scanning it I was able to select a different library (I exported a project as a new library for testing LR)
4. Disk space is displayed in MB, WITHOUT thousand separators. I don't like that, not easily read.
5. Panels can be behind other panels, thusly only showing a part (no QA dept @ Adobe¿)
6. Kicked off the import, a 7000 photos lib, and it looks like it needs one second per import. They are _versions_ not masters, because their website informs us:
Information that is not imported into Lightroom:
Image adjustments
Smart Albums
Face Tag Region of Interest (face naming tags are mapped to keywords)
Color Labels (other than optionally as keywords)
Stacks (other than optionally as keywords)
Any kind of creation (books, web galleries, etc) other than the collections that correspond to them
source: http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2014/10/aperture-import-plugin-now-available.html#comment-197341
7. Got a popup: "Enable reverse geocoding?"
Lightroom can automatically determine the city, state, and country of any photo tagged with a location. To do this, Lightroom needs to send GPS coordinates to Google Maps. No other data will be sent and Adobe does not have access to the information exchanged between Lightroom and Google.
Allow Lightroom to send GPS coordinates to Google Maps to look up addresses?"
It will fill in the names of the City, State & Country in the appropriate IPTC fields. This way one can make smart albums with the criteria set to these names. Quite clever, and I would like for Apple to implement this into Aperture as well. Wait...
8. Import took 50 minutes on my 7,000 photos, and the result is a bit weird: it has created a folder structure by date as well as our Aperture project folder names, including ay subfolders.
Well, LR is an ok tool. All the obvious things needed for photography are there: adjustments, different ways of displaying, a map view (data from Google), Book, Slideshow, Print, Web, it has it all. I understand people call the interface clunky, but it's not a big issue for me: it's simply different. Yep, not as polished as what Apple creates, but no software company does it like they do. The interface is a bit archaic: photos in grid view are displayed within a grey square, making it look like they are negatives / projector slides. Looks dumb. And old.
But ok, LR gets the job done, also on videos. Lift and stamp is there, batch change stuff. Reverse Geo tagging - the lot. The histogram looks awkward, seemingly blending in RGB with CYMK, resulting in a 7-colour histogram.
If Photos from Apple next year won't live up to peoples expectations and they don't want to wait for developers to create their beloved plugins this LR from Adobe may be just the replacement tool for Aperture users. Then again, Aperture won't quit working, so people can keep on using it to their hearts content.
Me? I just look forward to what Photos has to offer and will keep Aperture on my machine, even if Photos does what I want it to do.
A couple of notes:
1) as an everyday LR user I have to say that your review is more than fair(!) I've never quite understood the "clunky" description given by many users, considering a) everything is laid out in one easy window and organized in, functions and tabs, which I personally like; b) you can arrange the tabs and the entire interface to suit your workflow; c) just about everything has a keyboard shortcut to really zip around from one view or edit function to the next.
2) I always advice to take a look at the shortcuts, a quick look through the View menu and an AdobeTV or YouTube video or 2 before jumping in.
3) It would be nice if Adobe acknowledged that Apple users on newer versions of OSX have the very capable built in Maps app for GEO tagging, so I agree with your snark(!)
4) Your critique about the lack of polish of Adobe software is one that resonates with me as well... since I've been in a many year battle and post after post at Adobe Forums for niggly things like decimal points and function panels that work differently across their suite of apps. There IS no good reason or excuse for it any longer.*** Adobe has owned and developed the apps long enough to have a cohesive GUI across the suite... especially the publishing apps.
5) Naturally the biggest complaint I would have is that all photo edits are lost(!) This alone makes the conversion a half-assed attempt leaving most people with just a new fancy folder structure and collection aggregator, with a few keyword and IPTC imports that make it look like Adobe went through the motions as they so often do. I maintain it IS POSSIBLE to convert photo edits across the apps, Adobe just isn't making the effort. This has always been the case with them.
6) at the end of the day.... I would still have to say that we need to be patient and wait and see what Apple has planned. No guessing, no rumors... I want to see and test the new ?Photos before I make any recommendations to convert any libraries, whether iPhoto or Aperture, to Lightroom.
*** This is kind of a back door comment, but in all of my enthusiasm and trust that the ?Watch will be a success.... there is that small nagging itch in the back of my head, that tells me it could be a "F*** up" due to one arrogant person that I have been at odds with for years when he was CTO at Adobe: Kevin Lynch. Who if you're not aware is on the ?Watch team and did the hands-on presentation during the event. I try to be a good and forgiving person.... and even stepped back from some of my personal vicious comments about him, but HE and HE alone is the reason why Adobe is STILL messed up in many areas to this day. HIS decisions have affected my (and 1000's of designer's) health more than a few times.... so how ironic is it that he's now a part of the hardware/software team that may monitor that damaged health in the near future???? :err:
Thanks again for "calling" me up to read your review(!)
I agree; it may look clunky (because it wasn't designed by Apple[?]) but it really looks like most photo management / adjustment tools. The keyboard shortcuts are pretty good, meaning i like they mostly use single keys, albeit not for all obvious modifications: rotating is ?[ and ?] but the usual suspects use the usual suspect keys:
Hehe, I think I come across as snarky quite often. Oh well...at least that isn't my goal; I merely want to point out my view on a topic, trying to make it crystal clear.
Couldn't they create a single API for all teams to use? Something like: "oh, we need a GPS location panel" Colleague: "Well, it's part of this single API the GUI designers made for all apps so grab that GPS part of the design and implement it in Bridge/LR/Photoshop..." Not only would the benefit be that it's a 'write once, use everywhere' but it also makes newer versions stay consistent across all their software. I don't know if it's feasible; I'm not a software developer.
That doesn't sound good; 'always being the case that they don't make the effort'. But would it really be possible? I looked inside the Aperture.library package with my photos and do see the 'Versions' folder with:
Master.apmaster
Version-0.apversion
Version-1.apversion
nevermind: that IS INDEED possible: the .apversion is simply a .plist file, easily read by text edit if you change the extension. So, looks like Adobe is being lazy indeed.
QFT. Plus it's not like Aperture will stop working all of a sudden. Perhaps the Photos v1.0 won't live up to peoples expectations (which would be a crying shame as they made us wait for a VERY long time; I really don't get what the problem is here) but they will get plugins for missing features and a v1 release usually gets Apples attention to do right with updates.
Cool info. Plus: "oh dear" Your health? I presume there were excruciating 'features' in their products(?) I like [to use] that word, excruciating.
Well, peace out, as they say. I'll try LR some more, see if it 'fits the bill' but migrate away from Aperture until well after Photos has been released; I really don't want to mess around with something that works just fine for my needs. Besides, photography is a hobby of mine, not my profession.
Have a great Sunday!
Apple doesn't do everything perfectly. Just continue to use Dropbox and quit complaining.
I couldn't live without a keyboard macro utility. Used QuicKeys for years, then iKey, and now for the last few years Keyboard Maestro. In the very old days I used ResEdit mostly to reassign keyboard shortcuts (and a better translation many times for dialog fields... with a few jokes thrown in
^^^ Bold ^^^ Exactly what I've been barking about for years! Coordinated and synced API's and frameworks. Yes it's possible, but of course it also means a lot of man hours and dedication to rip out the legacy and rewrite the unified code from the ground up. That's what I expect from a CTO executive, and a company that looks into the future, rather than placating it's present day users with hacked-n-tacked-on new features. I used to think it was fear on Adobe's part for not upsetting the designers and folks that use it's products daily. It's well known that they hate change just as much as MS Office users.... or even many of the Apple users that have come into using Apple products over the last few years. However Adobe went ahead with the much hated subscription only model that showed they're too big and powerful and have no fear, which was jumping off the cliff (metaphorically) and far more "brave" than a few code changes that would sync something like character and paragraph styles (one of many functions that NEED to be synced by now!) across applications.
BINGO! RAW file definitions are determined and written by the camera makers. In order to tap into the power of RAW editing, each and every software developer has to write a GUI to effect the pixels of the RAW data from the camera/lens and sensor combo the pixels came from. For example: +/-1 EV will (and should!) always give the same results regardless of software used. It is to be expected that special "feature edits" such as gradient masking, or any advanced editing features found only as a function of a certain editing package, would not be possible to be cross-converted. Very similar to Adobe's own software that won't allow a PSD or Illustrator file to be opened with older versions with all edits intact.
That does not mean though that edits such as those in the first Basic Develop panel of Lightroom... all of which have Aperture equivalents, should not be transferred. Pure laziness on Adobe's part, and probably due to the fact that if Photos or any other app comes out... or is out.... that would like to pull in LR users, the "cat would be out of the bag" (<<cute pun!) that it could be as easy as writing scripts to rewrite the (basically) text files to re-import into your editor of choice.
I vociferously maintain, that photography, photos and their editing and management is THE most important *new* area of interest that Apple needs to get right, and show a new and easier... yet powerful way... to do it all. Coupled with the power of Apple's home-grown processors and sensors/lens from Sony, and cloud-sync, the iPhone 7 is gonna be a true point-n-shoot "killer" and DSLR "creative alternative". It will need GREAT future-thinking software to manage the creations coming from the iP7, but also from the other legacy gear we still want to use if the occasion arises that it will be the better choice for the project at hand.
***** See my Wish List at the bottom *******
A paragraph that buttresses my opinion above that I was going to delete, but well...
Music is fragmented and losing money; film content and the push into the living rooms is also fragmented and the power (content) is and will be in the hands of others to control it for a long time; wearables are "interesting" to work on for more power and connectivity in the future with all of our devices and identity security. This leaves the one thing that all people control themselves and are the main creators thereof... the copyright holders if you will... a HUGE market of photographers from Snapshot/Selfie-shooters to Pros, on everything from iPhones/iPads to expensive DSLRs and video cams... all up for grabs.
Many of us have stuck with Apple even through the "lost years" of the late 90's to mid '00s because Apple was (and still is!) the creative's platform of choice, and the very best one to be honest. Apple has in the past worked with the leading and largest provider of graphic design software, only to be let down on many occasion, and to be even drawn into fights about future platforms (Flash!), where Adobe and then CTO's were blind to where we were / are heading in graphic power and processing, especially on mobiles.
There is no better time for Apple to quit waiting for Adobe and to stop looking up to them.
Adobe's flagship reason for being... and quite honestly, a software package that *has* set the bar for all software of any kind is Photoshop, that over the last few versions, has decided it wants to be anything other than a "photo editing application", and rather a website creator, film editor, and social cloud aggregator. With Adobe Photoshop Lightroom (its complete true name), Adobe THINKS they're being innovative with their push to mobilize their software, with partners like Microsoft, and also dev'ing for Chrome/Android for "platform independence". What it truly means is that they're caving to the lowest common denominator in APIs, frameworks and design. Apple on the other hand KNOWS where they're going, what advancements in processors and sensors are available and coming soon, and developing the software to make use of the future chips, not yesterdays. That's why I expect something ground-breaking from them.
And quite honestly.... I expect the very same derision from pundits, bloggers and users alike when the new ?Photos hits, just as they did with the "old school" non-linear video editors when Apple re-imaged and built from the ground up for the future, Final Cut Pro. Because I truly believe that Apple will come out with something so new, so expandable, and so "almost there but not quite"... that it will create fear in the other software providers. It will not be complete, but will be built upon *frameworks* that will be so powerful and capable from day 1, that devs will go wild over it and "the light at the end of the tunnel" of where it's heading is but a glowing spec of dust in the far distance, only visible to those that like to look out that far.
Those that are interested in seeing software and workflows evolve, will jump on board and discover hints of the future and be excited about it and possibly help to make the future appear faster than a linear timeline. While those that are stuck in their ways and only see what's in front of them today, will voice their blind opinions to what they see... and wont give a second's thought to what lays ahead in the future of the software at hand.
Well, converting a few million Freehand files and getting every single designer I met or worked with to move over to Illustrator (a little less than 100) was not the most enjoyable, or healthy time of my life. Trying to explain it, teach it, and deal with the fact that FH was better... but dead...was VERY "excruciating" and in many ways still is to this day.
Keep on trying LR, there's some good things there and yes, you can process 100% just about any photo without needing to ever jump into Photoshop. Even cloning out objects, "spot repair", and localized masked adjustments. If anything is truly needed it is layers within LR. That would make it really powerful.
But again.... I'm thinking and betting that Apple can also see what LR and of course Aperture could do better, and I wouldn't bet against them that they have the chops to pull it off. Even though realistically.... I'm not expecting perfection from version 1.0.
...and it was! Back to the grind before the big holidays.
Take care.... and my apologies for such a long post(!) I do get carried away on the subject, and am a terrible editor(!!!)
***** Wish List for ?Photos *****
Apart from editing, which I don't expect to be very groundbreaking at all, my main concern is "management".
1) a hybrid library approach, that includes edits... but also exposes itself to the Finder and Spotlight for tagging (keywords) and manual grouping of "project collections", both within ?Photos and/or from the desktop.
For example: Albums and Collections are nothing more than grouped aliases to original photos. You can make your own manual or Smart "collections" of anything today, by just giving it a unique "tag", or drag-dropping aliases to a folder of your choice. Possibility in Photos 1: 85%
+++ And/Or +++
2) making use of extended EXIF, IPTC and OpenMeta data holders, and writing keywords, tags, and just about any and all additional photo info except edits, directly to the images themselves... both RAW and child derivatives. Only at the "sharing" part of the process should the ability to include all or a subset of meta data be asked to be included. Possibility: 50% (?)
Just think, star rating, drag-n-drop keywords + collections/albums.... from the desktop, iOS *or* ?Photos.... synced auto-magically where-ever that photo goes because the info is embedded in the photo.... and not only within a proprietary library.
This gets really interesting when coupled with iCloud and iWork projects. Imagine opening a photo or just viewing one on the desktop, and being able to see exactly which project(s) are using the very same photo. Click on "one" of the "Project Collection" link on the photo, and all of the photos appear, as well as the Pages, Numbers, or Keynote documents that incorporate it. Each photo could be in many projects, albums, or collections... and also have "children" derivatives. They could also have been shared on Facebook, Twitter, or Tumblr blogs, that would show the date they were shared. Click on the date, and voila... all of the pictures shared on that day.
Suffice it to say, meta data *IMHO* is the most important addition that any software developer could add for cloud, device and application independence for future computing. I'm hoping that Apple does this big, and works off of their Spotlight, Siri, and FCP advances in "tagging" to make it happen.
This post is huge.... and I have to stop now. Once again.... apologies! Have a great week getting through this post.... :smokey:
Fully agree. And with Photography software it is only easier with single letters as opposed to a combo key, like Cmd, shift or Ctrl.
So it IS possible. Well, maybe there is a future for me in Functional Dsign, or a CTO after all. I do dream up stuff like like this, but have no idea who to speak to in order to get the right person to follow up on my ideas. Oh wel.
While I do know this, I find it strange that RAW files look quite a bit different depending on which software one uses. I tend to agree with Ken Rockwell on this subject, in that the manufacturer knows the most about photography and their RAW definition files (or whatever it's called) would reproduce the photo best on your computer as opposed to a software company like Apple or Adobe who know 'nothing about photography'.
Uhm, in the words of Jeremy Clarkson, "How hard can it be?"
I'm really stumpified, no, flabbergasted, no, lost for words as to why a company like Adobe doesn't put in the effort to make this translation from a .plist file to their own format work. I mean, they wrot a migration tool, going from Aperture to LR and all we got is a tool that 1) isn't optimised, see my earlier post on the topic and 2) is merely outputting versions from Aperture and putting them into folders with the corresponding Project names. I mean, a 6 year old can do that. Adobe, really! Some would say that "for a stupid company they sure do dumb things".
Well I don't know if Apple agrees with you, but I do hope they will give photography, both in hardware and in software, their undecided attention. Aperture has been put on the backburner, iPhoto I don't know, they killed iPhoto on iOS and there are some serious issues with the iOS8 Photos app.
From what I understand the Photos application on OS X will work in perfect congruence with iOS and I expect nothing less. The more I think about Photos the higher I'm setting my expectations, and that's not a good thing. Though, honestly, kinda their own doing. If the application wasn't ready for realise together with 10.10 they, no, skip that, they really should've released Photos last summer. There is no excuse for having everyone to linger on with the current situation where things, gees, I'm rambling, and my friends' kids need attending (I'm tonight's babysitter). I'll finish responding to your epistle when I don't have these 3 little Mormons running around like they want to have the sitter arrested for not giving them their deserved undecided attention.
Interesting view! Yes, photography is massively increasing, making even photographers like Martin Parr wonder why we take all the photos that we do. We will need solid software to handle the every increasing photo sharing/uploading/backing up/tagging more than ever. I wonder where photography will take us. Perhaps being able to take a picture of the earth from a plane? A picture of the underwater world, taken from a boat, without even having to dive into the water? Would it be possible to take a picture around a corner instead of a straight line?
So you are saying that Photoshop has become bloated, not focused on purely photography, and the way people want to manipulate their images? I wouldn't know as I don't use any of Adobe's products, other than taking LR for a test flight. But at least they have an iPad app. More on that later as I just installed it and I have some... issues with the mobile app.
I really hope the new Photos application will be a home run. And since they're taking their time, quite a lot of time actually, I would expect it to be fully feature laden. But seeing the difference between iPhoto on iOS and the default Photos app on iOS8 now I am wary of the new desktop Photos. I really hope we will get most of the features Aperture has to offer now. But since they themselves told the world that people would be able to easily migrate to LR I think they want to dumb the new Photos down, so all features are in sync between iOS and OSX. And while that is a good thing (it just works and all that) I think we won;t be getting any "import .gpx track and aline your photos on the track" kind of features)
I will indeed. Curiosity has taken control.
Metadata, indeed, a must. Why the file size isn't shown by default in LR is beyond me. Not an issue when photos are stored on HDD, but I'm keeping them all on SSD, and then it does matter, a lot actually.
As to your wish list, here's mine for Aperture, written in April:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/179038/aperture-wish-list-aperturex-aperture-v4