Sorry, I've been skipping around a couple of similar message threads so perhaps I wasn't clear in my comments. <span style="line-height:1.4em;">I'm not complaining about Aperture. Aperture is almost perfect as far as I'm concerned.</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">I'm referring to iOS 8's handling of images, albums, and events synced from Aperture. In iOS, the sort order for those albums and events is a) fixed and not user selectable, b) not clearly defined, and c) not based on either of the two data points I care about: image creation date or album/event file name.</span>
As a result, on my iPhone and iPad all of my synced events and albums appear in seemingly random and inconsistent order, intermingled with Apple-created smart folders for things like videos and third party apps. This makes it extremely difficult and frustrating to browse ones photo collection on an iOS device.
I agree, though I do believe it is their goal to design it in such a way it 'couldn't be simpler' yet me as a techie sometimes fail to see how something works intuitively.
I think that's a silly example; anyone will understand that a scan doesn't have any meta data embedded and the only thing a photo management tool can do is make use of the date the photo was imported.
That happens in Aperture? Never seen that behaviour.
Your Dock is so long I presume it reads "to be continued" at either end.
But yes, thanks for clarifying!
Long? I tidied it up recently and removed half the stuff!
So... I guess what i don't understand is why Apple can't design a Photos application in much the same way as Photoshop. Yes - its crazy overwhelming for the average idiot but its usable and feature rich way beyond the needs of almost anyone who uses it - and it comes from Adobe...
Tangentially- not all the Pro Apps are 'less then.' Logic in any iteration is still very awesome and creatively superior to almost anything from the music creation world - save maybe Sibelius which is really totally different...
In my opinion. I guess I don't understand why theres so much hate for iOS 8 and Yosemite (except the OMG annoying ringing on all devices nonsense - thats infuriating and having to choose between wifi calling and the option when focus requires me to be on one non iPhone device exclusively is trumped by the money id save on wifi calling and serenity when everything goes off like a bomb.
iTunes seriously does suck. I mean... its really always sucked but again - nothing to do with pictures.
And I think now that they make money and lots of money they can return to us the open apple and closed apple and lose the conformity of the command key. And Oregon Trail... who didn't love Oregon Trail.
So... I guess what i don't understand is why Apple can't design a Photos application in much the same way as Photoshop. Yes - its crazy overwhelming for the average idiot but its usable and feature rich way beyond the needs of almost anyone who uses it - and it comes from Adobe...
Tangentially- not all the Pro Apps are 'less then.' Logic in any iteration is still very awesome and creatively superior to almost anything from the music creation world - save maybe Sibelius which is really totally different...
In my opinion. I guess I don't understand why theres so much hate for iOS 8 and Yosemite (except the OMG annoying ringing on all devices nonsense - thats infuriating and having to choose between wifi calling and the option when focus requires me to be on one non iPhone device exclusively is trumped by the money id save on wifi calling and serenity when everything goes off like a bomb.
iTunes seriously does suck. I mean... its really always sucked but again - nothing to do with pictures.
And I think now that they make money and lots of money they can return to us the open apple and closed apple and lose the conformity of the command key. And Oregon Trail... who didn't love Oregon Trail.
So, you have used Photos for OSX? That's about the only thing I garnered from your weird rant. I haven't yet used Photos so I am not able to comment. Oh, wait nobody has yet so you are what ... ?
I share the sentiments of the commenter who talked about Apple's missteps, given that photography is a core element of their products. Putting aside the complaints about Aperture's demise, the fact that the new Photos app isn't yet available and has no definite timeframe for release is a big fail.
As an Aperture users I am disappointed Apple will no longer support the app. I know many people are talking about the new Photos app as being an "in-between" app. I am hopeful Apple will actually release a very capable app that will keep both camps happy... although I am sure some will not be happy no matter what Apple releases. I guess we can do nothing but continue waiting to see.
Yeah, I'm not an Aperture user, but plenty of my professional photographer clients are, and they are PISSED that Apple is dropping it.
Crap like this is costing Apple some really dedicated long-time users. I'm doing what I can to mitigate it, but Apple needs to stop this crap.
Apple, support your high end customers. They're why you're still alive today, and didn't go out of business in the late '90s.
@freediverx - your experience here is similar to what Apple did (and may still do) on iTunes - they have a release date against every album but often they were as much practical use as a plastic teapot. An example of this would be something like Dark Side of The Moon which was released in 1973, but if they had the 20th anniversary edition in the iTunes Store then it would be dated 1993. Technically, this may be correct, but if you are trying to create a smart playlist of 90s music you don't want DSOTM turning up in it!
I spent SO much time batch fixing dates from iTunes Store albums, grabbing the release dates from Wikipedia and it was tedious in the extreme. I think they finally updated some to reflect the original release date. I can see the argument for an updated re-release date, but it's not very helpful for the way most of us (I imagine) actually relate to our music from a particular time period.
In the case of iTunes music, the issue is clouded by the influence of music studios, who care only about short term revenue and profits and couldn't care less about the user experience. In other words, those issues are created by marketing folks outside of Apple. Music management was a horrendous mess before iTunes and iPods, and solving that problem was a key reason behind the iPod's success. I will never pay a dime for DRM'd content, and I spend a few seconds checking metadata any time I import a music album or movie. This is how I've addressed the issue in iTunes.
But with image management there is no marketing interference to blame since the images are all user-generated. And in Aperture I've always felt I had sufficient visibility and control over my library - until iOS came along and messed everything up by treating users like morons.
And in Aperture I've always felt I had sufficient visibility and control over my library - until iOS came along and messed everything up by treating users like morons.
I think I want to thumb this up, but I may have a different reasoning for it.
To me, the photos app on iOS could do better. The search function only works on album names, not embedded keywords. I think my iPhone is faster than the first Mac Mini, so why the heck doesn't the search work on keywords?
2) Then there's the Events sort order bug.
3) Album names get a single line, with a useless # of images on a second line. Why the don't wrap the album name over two lines and add the number of images in brackets as a suffix is beyond me.
4) Why can't I edit, delete, move images in and out of the Albums? Because they're created on the Mac? Well, they better be sortable in the new Photos app combined with iOS.
5) I want to create Smart Albums on my phone, not just a list with recent searches.
Finally, though a HW issue, the photos are shot on a 4:3 sensor, while the display is 16:9 (used to be 3:2). That sucks, but ok, keep the Point and Shoot camera AR, but why do photos zoom in when viewed? In order to see the whole picture you need to zoom out a little. And that's preposterous!
What about when you go into an older album and make a few touch-ups and edits to your favorite photos? Why should those photos now appear as recent and completely disconnected from the others taken at the same event?
PhilBoogie: That happens in Aperture? Never seen that behaviour.
The problem exists not in Aperture, but in iOS. If you edit an old image iOS treats it like a new image. It baffles me why iOS would sort by edit or import date rather than by creation date.
Quote:
What about when someone scans photos from an old album and wants those photos to appear chronologically in the time when they were taken, rather than when they were digitized or imported into an app?
PhilBoogie: I think that's a silly example; anyone will understand that a scan doesn't have any meta data embedded and the only thing a photo management tool can do is make use of the date the photo was imported.
It's not silly at all. Anyone who cares about this can take steps to add the appropriate meta data manually and/or compensate via some file/folder naming scheme.
In Aperture I prefix each event's name with its date and I keep my Library arranged (sorted) by name. The result is that all of my events and albums appear in the desired chronological order regardless of their metadata. Aperture also allows users to alter the dates in the metadata, though the process is neither intuitive nor efficient.
In iOS, however, all of the above is moot, since the Photos app doesn't sort images/albums by either filename OR creation date, does not reveal what parameter the images are sorted by, and does not provide the user an option for changing that sort order. The simplest fix would be for Apple to provide a button to toggle sorting by date or by name. The best fix would be for them to provide some transparency into how the images are sorted and some guidance as to how users should edit their image collections to achieve the desired sorting results.
It's not silly at all. Anyone who cares about this can take steps to add the appropriate meta data manually and/or compensate via some file/folder naming scheme.
Well, personally I would be happy if keywords were searchable, and would actually be 'the Apple thing to do' as it would simply 'just work'.
In Aperture I prefix each event's name with its date and I keep my Library arranged (sorted) by name. The result is that all of my events and albums appear in the desired chronological order regardless of their metadata.
Many people do it like that. I don't, since Aperture comes with many view options, including by date, by year, by project name et cetera. Digital images have the date embedded anyway, so there really is no need to add it to the Album or Project name as well. Well, except when Apple screws up that is.
Aperture also allows users to alter the dates in the metadata, though the process is neither intuitive nor efficient.
I think it's very efficient. If you select a group of photos and alter the date/time all other images will be changed as well. But not simply set to the same date, but alter by date/time difference. That's very efficient!
In iOS, however, all of the above is moot, since the Photos app doesn't sort images/albums by either filename OR creation date
Yes it does, for the Albums. Only the Events in the 'Events from my Mac' folder aren't sorted: it's bug.
... does not reveal what parameter the images are sorted by, and does not provide the user an option for changing that sort order. The simplest fix would be for Apple to provide a button to toggle sorting by date or by name. The best fix would be for them to provide some transparency into how the images are sorted and some guidance as to how users should edit their image collections to achieve the desired sorting results.
Fully agree; there really ought to be some level of control over this. With the introduction of 128GB iPads and now iPhones they really ought to understand people are going to fill their device up with possibly all of their photos. I've loaded 23,000 now, and really would like some control over how they are displayed. Read up on my workaround for the 'Events bug'.
Based on what happened with the iWork suite I wouldn't get my hopes up that this new app will be anything more than an improved iPhoto app. My guess is it will be more geared towards the masses and not the pros.
Based on Apple's track record of iWork, iMovie, and Final Cut Pro, the new Photos app will likely be a butured version of iPhoto with many features removed. Make sure you back up your iPhoto library before upgrading because you can't go back. I will not install the new Photos app on my main drive since Apple has butured new versions rather than improve them.
Based on Apple's track record of iWork, iMovie, and Final Cut Pro, the new Photos app will likely be a butured version of iPhoto with many features removed. Make sure you back up your iPhoto library before upgrading because you can't go back. I will not install the new Photos app on my main drive since Apple has butured new versions rather than improve them.
As Photos for OS X is intended to replace both iPhoto and Aperture I doubt that even Apple will make it less powerful than iPhoto; it's Aperture users that are worried.
It's always wise to back up everything all the time (using Time Machine probably, and to an off-site drive as well) - so your library would have been backed up anyway. Given that Apple recently created a unified iPhoto and Aperture library a while ago, the new Photos may not require a library upgrade anyway.
Spelling police: the word is butchered, not butured.
As Photos for OS X is intended to replace both iPhoto and Aperture I doubt that even Apple will make it less powerful than iPhoto; it's Aperture users that are worried.
Excellent point! And since I upgraded to Aperture the moment, no, it v1.5 arrived I cannot remember exactly what was so awful about iPhoto. I do know it was. Plus I miss iPhoto on iOS, but that's a different topic altogether.
Comments
OK gotchya.
Long? I tidied it up recently and removed half the stuff!
Tangentially- not all the Pro Apps are 'less then.' Logic in any iteration is still very awesome and creatively superior to almost anything from the music creation world - save maybe Sibelius which is really totally different...
In my opinion. I guess I don't understand why theres so much hate for iOS 8 and Yosemite (except the OMG annoying ringing on all devices nonsense - thats infuriating and having to choose between wifi calling and the option when focus requires me to be on one non iPhone device exclusively is trumped by the money id save on wifi calling and serenity when everything goes off like a bomb.
iTunes seriously does suck. I mean... its really always sucked but again - nothing to do with pictures.
And I think now that they make money and lots of money they can return to us the open apple and closed apple and lose the conformity of the command key. And Oregon Trail... who didn't love Oregon Trail.
So, you have used Photos for OSX? That's about the only thing I garnered from your weird rant. I haven't yet used Photos so I am not able to comment. Oh, wait nobody has yet so you are what ... ?
It still works for me. I live in the UK. Is the withdrawl regional?
Non-developer, normal person account.
If you think Photoshop is the template to follow, then just use Photoshop, and done. I do. But it's absurd for normal people.
As an Aperture users I am disappointed Apple will no longer support the app. I know many people are talking about the new Photos app as being an "in-between" app. I am hopeful Apple will actually release a very capable app that will keep both camps happy... although I am sure some will not be happy no matter what Apple releases. I guess we can do nothing but continue waiting to see.
Yeah, I'm not an Aperture user, but plenty of my professional photographer clients are, and they are PISSED that Apple is dropping it.
Crap like this is costing Apple some really dedicated long-time users. I'm doing what I can to mitigate it, but Apple needs to stop this crap.
Apple, support your high end customers. They're why you're still alive today, and didn't go out of business in the late '90s.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/184150/ios8-build-in-photo-app-not-sorting-events-alphabetically-anymore-heres-a-workaround
@freediverx - your experience here is similar to what Apple did (and may still do) on iTunes - they have a release date against every album but often they were as much practical use as a plastic teapot. An example of this would be something like Dark Side of The Moon which was released in 1973, but if they had the 20th anniversary edition in the iTunes Store then it would be dated 1993. Technically, this may be correct, but if you are trying to create a smart playlist of 90s music you don't want DSOTM turning up in it!
I spent SO much time batch fixing dates from iTunes Store albums, grabbing the release dates from Wikipedia and it was tedious in the extreme. I think they finally updated some to reflect the original release date. I can see the argument for an updated re-release date, but it's not very helpful for the way most of us (I imagine) actually relate to our music from a particular time period.
In the case of iTunes music, the issue is clouded by the influence of music studios, who care only about short term revenue and profits and couldn't care less about the user experience. In other words, those issues are created by marketing folks outside of Apple. Music management was a horrendous mess before iTunes and iPods, and solving that problem was a key reason behind the iPod's success. I will never pay a dime for DRM'd content, and I spend a few seconds checking metadata any time I import a music album or movie. This is how I've addressed the issue in iTunes.
But with image management there is no marketing interference to blame since the images are all user-generated. And in Aperture I've always felt I had sufficient visibility and control over my library - until iOS came along and messed everything up by treating users like morons.
I think I want to thumb this up, but I may have a different reasoning for it.
To me, the photos app on iOS could do better. The search function only works on album names, not embedded keywords. I think my iPhone is faster than the first Mac Mini, so why the heck doesn't the search work on keywords?
2) Then there's the Events sort order bug.
3) Album names get a single line, with a useless # of images on a second line. Why the don't wrap the album name over two lines and add the number of images in brackets as a suffix is beyond me.
4) Why can't I edit, delete, move images in and out of the Albums? Because they're created on the Mac? Well, they better be sortable in the new Photos app combined with iOS.
5) I want to create Smart Albums on my phone, not just a list with recent searches.
Finally, though a HW issue, the photos are shot on a 4:3 sensor, while the display is 16:9 (used to be 3:2). That sucks, but ok, keep the Point and Shoot camera AR, but why do photos zoom in when viewed? In order to see the whole picture you need to zoom out a little. And that's preposterous!
The problem exists not in Aperture, but in iOS. If you edit an old image iOS treats it like a new image. It baffles me why iOS would sort by edit or import date rather than by creation date.
Quote:
It's not silly at all. Anyone who cares about this can take steps to add the appropriate meta data manually and/or compensate via some file/folder naming scheme.
In Aperture I prefix each event's name with its date and I keep my Library arranged (sorted) by name. The result is that all of my events and albums appear in the desired chronological order regardless of their metadata. Aperture also allows users to alter the dates in the metadata, though the process is neither intuitive nor efficient.
In iOS, however, all of the above is moot, since the Photos app doesn't sort images/albums by either filename OR creation date, does not reveal what parameter the images are sorted by, and does not provide the user an option for changing that sort order. The simplest fix would be for Apple to provide a button to toggle sorting by date or by name. The best fix would be for them to provide some transparency into how the images are sorted and some guidance as to how users should edit their image collections to achieve the desired sorting results.
Well, personally I would be happy if keywords were searchable, and would actually be 'the Apple thing to do' as it would simply 'just work'.
Many people do it like that. I don't, since Aperture comes with many view options, including by date, by year, by project name et cetera. Digital images have the date embedded anyway, so there really is no need to add it to the Album or Project name as well. Well, except when Apple screws up that is.
I think it's very efficient. If you select a group of photos and alter the date/time all other images will be changed as well. But not simply set to the same date, but alter by date/time difference. That's very efficient!
Yes it does, for the Albums. Only the Events in the 'Events from my Mac' folder aren't sorted: it's bug.
Fully agree; there really ought to be some level of control over this. With the introduction of 128GB iPads and now iPhones they really ought to understand people are going to fill their device up with possibly all of their photos. I've loaded 23,000 now, and really would like some control over how they are displayed. Read up on my workaround for the 'Events bug'.
Based on Apple's track record of iWork, iMovie, and Final Cut Pro, the new Photos app will likely be a butured version of iPhoto with many features removed. Make sure you back up your iPhoto library before upgrading because you can't go back. I will not install the new Photos app on my main drive since Apple has butured new versions rather than improve them.
Based on Apple's track record of iWork, iMovie, and Final Cut Pro, the new Photos app will likely be a butured version of iPhoto with many features removed. Make sure you back up your iPhoto library before upgrading because you can't go back. I will not install the new Photos app on my main drive since Apple has butured new versions rather than improve them.
As Photos for OS X is intended to replace both iPhoto and Aperture I doubt that even Apple will make it less powerful than iPhoto; it's Aperture users that are worried.
It's always wise to back up everything all the time (using Time Machine probably, and to an off-site drive as well) - so your library would have been backed up anyway. Given that Apple recently created a unified iPhoto and Aperture library a while ago, the new Photos may not require a library upgrade anyway.
Spelling police: the word is butchered, not butured.
Oh, and here in the UK, the Photos app has vanished from iCloud.com as I type.
The Help page still exists though.
Excellent point! And since I upgraded to Aperture the moment, no, it v1.5 arrived I cannot remember exactly what was so awful about iPhoto. I do know it was. Plus I miss iPhoto on iOS, but that's a different topic altogether.