Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Other Raw Converters => Apple Aperture Q&A => Topic started by: Mosccol on June 27, 2014, 01:14:20 pm
-
Just picked this up:
http://www.loopinsight.com/2014/06/27/apple-stops-development-of-aperture/
Apple even apparently working with Adobe to transition customers
:(
-
Without a formal upgrade path (Aperture 4) there will be mass suicides.
'Now for something different' is not acceptable.
-
Sad day. Not that I expect in to make any difference, but I intend to send Apple a comment in opposition.
-
Damn,I love Aperture!
-
Just picked this up:
http://www.loopinsight.com/2014/06/27/apple-stops-development-of-aperture/
Apple even apparently working with Adobe to transition customers
:(
I'm not 'transitioning' to some bleedin' Adobe rental scheme. Sod it, Capture One it might have to be
-
I'm not 'transitioning' to some bleedin' Adobe rental scheme. Sod it, Capture One it might have to be
Buy a copy of LR then, problem solved.
-
Lightroom sucks
-
Buy a copy of LR then, problem solved.
I just went to the Adobe site and it wasn't obvious to me that you can buy it anymore, but I confess I didn't hunt around the pages very much. The easily arrived at pages only describe the subscription-Cloud model, which is of no interest to me.
I have not paid attention to what Adobe has been doing, so I'm confused. I'm running a 2006-era white iMac, which is hardware limited to only run Lion, I cannot upgrade past that OS version. Aperture 3.4 is fine for me. In fact, all I need right now is for Apple to implement raw support for my new Oly E-M10 and I'll be ok. But I'm a pessimist and will assume that at some point, I'll have to migrate away from Aperture.
Is there a version of Lightroom that I can buy (not rent) that runs on Lion? (I don't earn money from photography and am semi-retired and have no interest in subscriptions.) Is there a place on the Adobe site that explains the versions available and what they are compatible with?
-
If you go to the bottom of http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop-lightroom.html (http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop-lightroom.html), there’s a link to buy the standalone version.
-
If you go to the bottom of http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop-lightroom.html (http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop-lightroom.html), there’s a link to buy the standalone version.
Thank you. Sometimes I wonder about myself.
-
I'm not 'transitioning' to some bleedin' Adobe rental scheme. Sod it, Capture One it might have to be
You don't have to "rent" LR5, you purchase just like Aperture.
-
Thank you. Sometimes I wonder about myself.
:)
Although it did take a little effort to find it, they don’t make it particularly easy.
-
"with the introduction of the new Photos app and iCloud Photo Library, enabling you to safely store all of your photos in iCloud and access them from anywhere, there will be no new development of Aperture. When Photos for OS X ships next year, users will be able to migrate their existing Aperture libraries to Photos for OS X.
Aperture on OS X Yosemite will support RAW v6, meaning new RAW support added to OS X will be available to Aperture users on Yosemite."
From an Apple spokesman, as published on DPR. The sky may not be falling as fast or as hard as you thought. Of course, if you have very old hardware that can't take the newer OS, you're not going to get Photos. But Aperture isn't suddenly going to stop working either, so you'll have time to plan a transition.
-
Hi guys,
I'm storing stills, AVCHD video and ambient audio in Aperture and have questions for the group.
Is there another DAM that can catalogue stills, video and audio?
I don't think Lightroom will catalogue & playback audio and I don't think CaptureOne will catalogue anything but a still?
Plus, I was looking toward the A7S, it shoots XAVC-S video, would Lightroom catalogue and display XAVC S?
Thanks,
Chris
-
Hi guys,
I'm storing stills, AVCHD video and ambient audio in Aperture and have questions for the group.
Is there another DAM that can catalogue stills, video and audio?
I don't think Lightroom will catalogue & playback audio and I don't think CaptureOne will catalogue anything but a still?
Plus, I was looking toward the A7S, it shoots XAVC-S video, would Lightroom catalogue and display XAVC S?
Thanks,
Chris
Media Pro (formerly Expression Media/iView Media) by Phase One can catalog nearly every kind of digital media file that you can store on your computer. While I worked with Lightroom for 6 years and Aperture the past few ... I use Media Pro for my long-term Archive catalog. Been using it since it was iView way back in the day ...
-
Apple even apparently working with Adobe to transition customers
:(
That is false ... Tech Crunch broke the story early and mistakenly reported that Apple was offering the transition work ... other news outlets/blogs followed quoting the TC story ... TC later corrected their story, the following on outlets may have not corrected their reporting ... Adobe is working on a transition method for Aperture users NOT Apple.
The following is the corrected version on Tech Crunch:
"Adobe says that it will ‘double down’ on Lightroom support and offer Apple users a way to migrate:"
http://techcrunch.com/2014/06/27/apple-to-cease-development-of-aperture-and-transition-users-to-photos-for-os-x/
-
Apple is phasing out Aperture and introducing Photos. Why do folks assume this means a loss of capability? It's just a move made with iCloud in mind.
-Dave-
-
Apple is phasing out Aperture and introducing Photos. Why do folks assume this means a loss of capability? It's just a move made with iCloud in mind.
Because the average user doesn’t need or want all the features of Aperture, so wouldn’t make any sense for Apple to subject them to all that complexity. I mean, I’ve talked to people who found iPhoto too complicated, so they just kept all their photos in folders and used the Finder and Preview to look at them. Imagine how they’d react to something like Aperture.
And besides, Apple gave a preview of Photos at WWDC, and it’s an iPhoto replacement, not an Aperture replacement.
-
Because the average user doesn’t need or want all the features of Aperture, so wouldn’t make any sense for Apple to subject them to all that complexity. I mean, I’ve talked to people who found iPhoto too complicated, so they just kept all their photos in folders and used the Finder and Preview to look at them. Imagine how they’d react to something like Aperture.
And besides, Apple gave a preview of Photos at WWDC, and it’s an iPhoto replacement, not an Aperture replacement.
It certainly doesn't look that way. If you look at the Photos app screenshot you'll notice a number of tools on the right that look like they came from Aperture...there's a histogram, exposure/highlights/brightness and other sliders. http://www.macworld.com/article/2375212/apple-retires-aperture-and-iphoto-to-be-replaced-with-photos-for-os-x.html
-
Is there a version of Lightroom that I can buy (not rent) that runs on Lion? (I don't earn money from photography and am semi-retired and have no interest in subscriptions.) Is there a place on the Adobe site that explains the versions available and what they are compatible with?
I gave a family member with a RAM limited MacBook my disk copy of version 3 of Lightroom ad it works well. I don't think the OS is an issue but RAM and speed can be.
-
re iPhoto to 'replace' Aperture:
It would be nice to have a true converging application (e.g. interesting when 'faces' became available on both). My issue w iPhoto is about its destructive editing and the fact it keeps multiple versions of the same picture. If Photos for Yosemite supports non destructive editing, then we may be on to something like Photos + round trips to Pixelmator.
-
And besides, Apple gave a preview of Photos at WWDC, and it’s an iPhoto replacement, not an Aperture replacement.
To be fair, what was demonstrated at WWDC was a v1 beta that is still almost a year away from release so we have no way of knowing what it's full feature set will be ... or what current apps it will be capable of replacing.
I'm going to withhold judgement until I see what the new Photos app actually will offer ... not speculate based upon insufficient data.
-
Media Pro (formerly Expression Media/iView Media) by Phase One can catalog nearly every kind of digital media file that you can store on your computer. While I worked with Lightroom for 6 years and Aperture the past few ... I use Media Pro for my long-term Archive catalog. Been using it since it was iView way back in the day ...
Hi Butch,
Sincerely appreciate the advice! I just had a nosey over at PhaseOne, I do like their pro app, I've tried it previously, but it has a built-in DAM and there's no mention of video assets stored within it. Then there's the Express app (I presume no built-in DAM) but what about functionality, is it like iPhoto vs. Aperture? Looks like Media Pro is just the ticket though, if it'll take various video formats too, plus audio, I'll be chuffed to bits.
Just got to contact PhaseOne and see if I can get another 60 day trial, I've had two for CaptureOne Pro, but didn't take it too seriously because it ignored my AVCD on the camera................and that's half of what I need!
Cheers,
Chris
-
Media Pro (formerly Expression Media/iView Media) by Phase One can catalog nearly every kind of digital media file that you can store on your computer. While I worked with Lightroom for 6 years and Aperture the past few ... I use Media Pro for my long-term Archive catalog. Been using it since it was iView way back in the day ...
I just tried an XAVC S file (the new Sony consumer Codec) in MediaPro, it appears but won't play back, that's a mayor hit for me. But, in the latest LR it plays back fine, even though I can find no official reference that LR supports this Codec. No joy on Audio files in LR though -- but they're fine in MediaPro.
Funny thing about LR, it's very intuitive, but I can see CaptureOne Pro is a far more capable RAW converter. An issue with CaptureOne Pro, plug-ins, my NIK suite, especially SEP2 is used on just about every file!
Chris
-
What on earth makes you think C1 is a "far more capable raw converter"? It's certainly good, on a par with LR, and its tethering solution including C1 Pilot is the best.
-
What on earth makes you think C1 is a "far more capable raw converter"? It's certainly good, on a par with LR, and its tethering solution including C1 Pilot is the best.
Maybe a bad turn of phrase on my part. LR has that ASDA vibe going on, I just want to get in and get out once the jobs done. CaptureOne reminds me a little of Marks & Sparks, I'm more comfortable with its layout and decor, it inspires me to hang around a little longer and maybe try something new. The B&W functionally certainly appeals.
For me, the interface in CaptureOne is what Aperture would've/should've become. The only thing missing with CaptureOne is video integration, it's a multi-media world and we shoot video out of necessity.
So feel free to substitute "capable" for "comfortable, subtle, refined or inspiring" I could go on......... I always thought LR was a better RAW converter to Aperture but the user experience wasn't. As with all things photography/art there's that aesthetic component, even in our software experience!
-
The B&W functionally [of C1] certainly appeals.
Yet LR has a huge advantage in that area in its Targeted Adjustment Tool. It's its Taste the Difference range. But at least, unlike Aperture (iirc), C1 has split toning.
John
-
Maybe a bad turn of phrase on my part. LR has that ASDA vibe going on, I just want to get in and get out once the jobs done. CaptureOne reminds me a little of Marks & Sparks, I'm more comfortable with its layout and decor, it inspires me to hang around a little longer and maybe try something new.
Well if we are going to use shopping metaphors, I always found C1 a bit like a badly laid out store where even though you could rearrange the fixtures and fittings to suit yourself, it was still tricky to get around to where you wanted. ;)
-
Yes, like I said from the off, "Lightroom is intuitive"........
John's point about the targeted adjustment tool was a good one, after watching the Adobe tutorial I thought of a dozen reasons that'd make my day easier, and there are no doubt more!
CaptureOne does appear to be the tool of choice amongst the high end fashion & commercial shooters though, mind you that's why they run with digital assistants and the like, its a professional environment front to back! It'll be interesting to see what the established editorial shooters revert to from Aperture.
Have you got any LR tips like John's?
Chris
-
That's a shame about Apple not going to upgrade Aperture. I have Aperture, Lightroom, Capture One and Phocus and in my opinion Aperture is by far the versatile catalogue program. As far as I know it is the only one where you can put the catalogue on a server for multiple machines.
Unfortunately Apple has pretty much wound down it's support for the higher end users in favour of consumer apps, starting with the Xservers a few years ago.
They are wiping away the people that have supported Apple for over 30 years.
As for putting your photos on the cloud, are they mad? I have 2TB of photos. In most countries where the Internet may not be as good as at Apple headquarters I could never upload, backup or even afford usage charges to use the cloud. A restore would take months. Some people actually need a programme running on serious computer and not an app.
I guess they just see the future in apps and iPhones. That could change as quickly as it went their way in the first place.
You can send feedback to here
http://www.apple.com/feedback/aperture.html
-
Photos in the Cloud? That's plain ludicrous for commercial photographers.
I have around 16 TB of raw images. I only have a bandwidth for uploads of 1 Mbit per second. It would take over four years, 24 hours a day, for me to upload that.
And... I don't WANT to upload that, even if I could. Those images are my business, and they do not belong on a third party's server. I guess the phrase "commercial in confidence" only means anything to Apple, Google, et al. if it is THEIR commercial secrets that are to be protected?
Sigh.
Cheers, Hywel.
-
They only say that they are ceasing further development, but they don't say that they are ending support for existing Aperture users, not yet anyway. I sent a query into Apple support asking if they intend to continue supporting new RAW formats. I haven't had an answer yet but it hasn't been that long and they're probably swamped.
I don't normally buy newly released cameras but I bought an Oly E-M10 and there's no RAW support for it yet in Aperture. I understand corporate secrecy, but it seems to me that they should at least state whether they plan to extend RAW support to existing Aperture users for new cameras. I guess they're worried that if they come out and say they won't that lots of pros and serious amateurs will buy something else, but by not saying anything, they only manage to annoy those very same people and encourage them to move away from Apple anyway. If they're decided their future is tablet consumer amateur use only, fine, that's their prerogative, they don't owe me anything, but it would be decent to let me know. If they don't, I will assume the worst.
Funny how the web has tended to favour monopoly (or near monopoly) instead of making more variety available. As these threads show, the only alternative seems to be Lightroom, which at least for v. 5 is still available for purchase, not rental. No one knows how long that will last, especially after Aperture is gone as a viable choice.
-
As these threads show, the only alternative seems to be Lightroom, which at least for v. 5 is still available for purchase, not rental. No one knows how long that will last, especially after Aperture is gone as a viable choice.
“Future versions of Lightroom will be made available via traditional perpetual licenses indefinitely.” Tom Hogarty (http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2013/05/lightroom-and-the-creative-cloud.html), LR product manager.
-
They only say that they are ceasing further development, but they don't say that they are ending support for existing Aperture users, not yet anyway. I sent a query into Apple support asking if they intend to continue supporting new RAW formats. I haven't had an answer yet but it hasn't been that long and they're probably swamped.
Apple have already stated that they will be continuing to update raw support - in the Apple world, raw support is part of the operating system, not individual Apple apps such as Aperture. However, how quickly new raw formats will be supported, and to what extent less popular cameras will be supported is an open question. Also, Aperture will not be updated beyond Yosemite, so in effect raw support for Aperture will almost certainly end when Yosemite's successor comes out.
Sandy
-
Anyone care to speculate about why Apple chose to make this statement, rather than maintaining their usual silence about Aperture 4, and why now?
-
DID Apple make a statement, or is it all based on the rumour posted on The Loop ? I can't see any statement from Apple anywhere. Least of all on the Aperture pages at their web site.
-
DID Apple make a statement, or is it all based on the rumour posted on The Loop ?
Well, other reputable sites also report being contacted by an Apple PR (http://www.apertureexpert.com/tips/2014/6/27/aperture-dead-long-live-photos#.U7Bcg6idBEQ), and it's not been denied.
So back to my question, why make any statement and why make it now?
-
Anyone care to speculate about why Apple chose to make this statement, rather than maintaining their usual silence about Aperture 4, and why now?
My guess is, the new Photos app is to be a part of the OS. Since Yosemite is being openly beta tested, if they would include Photos as part of that testing phase, Apple would no longer be able to keep their intentions mum.
Purely a guess, mind you.
-
re iPhoto to 'replace' Aperture:
My issue w iPhoto is about its destructive editing and the fact it keeps multiple versions of the same picture.
My understanding of iPhoto is that it is NON-DESTRUCTIVE becasue it never edits your original. You can revert back to that original at any time (Photos > Revert to Original).
That being said, iPhoto is no replacement for Aperture or Lightroom. Hopefully Photos will be powerful enough in the right areas. if it's anything like the weird and positively stupid and schizophrenic Photos-iPhoto dichotomy on iPad, then we're in for trouble. Hopefully, sanity will prevail.
-
Well, other reputable sites also report being contacted by an Apple PR (http://www.apertureexpert.com/tips/2014/6/27/aperture-dead-long-live-photos#.U7Bcg6idBEQ), and it's not been denied.
So back to my question, why make any statement and why make it now?
I suppose one could put a positive spin on it and say that they're actually trying to prevent losing customers. But if so, it's a pretty inept way to go about it. Then again, Apple has gone for so long without communicating in any other way than through major PR events, that it is quite possible they have nobody with any idea of how to organise a grass roots type of campaign.
-
Looks like I may be SOL regardless. Did some more digging and Apple has not extended raw support for several cameras in Lion even though they were updated for Mountain Lion. For instance, the Oly E-M1 raw support was provided for Mountain Lion but not Lion, so there is probably no hope for E-M10 RAW support for me. The last Olympus update in Lion was for the PL5. So, future Aperture development or not, I have to change something. I understand that companies may not want to support platforms forever, but my 2006 white iMac works just fine for what I need, so I am reluctant to upgrade hardware just to get RAW support for my camera, as I have no other reason to upgrade. I also know in my bones that supporting those RAW formats in Lion would be no big deal for them, but that's life.
Would it make sense for me, do you think, to change my workflow and convert my E-M10 RAWs to DNG, using some converter, and work with the DNG in Aperture 3.4.5? Is anyone using DNG with that version of Aperture? Any surprises I need to be aware of?
-
“Future versions of Lightroom will be made available via traditional perpetual licenses indefinitely.” Tom Hogarty (http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2013/05/lightroom-and-the-creative-cloud.html), LR product manager.
A belated thanks for this, I wasn't aware.
-
Thom Hogan has an interesting article on the subject of Aperture's demise:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/accessories/software-for-nikon-dslrs/software-news/another-one-bites-the-dust.html
The screen shot provided in The Loop article looks much more like Aperture than iPhoto.
(http://cdn6.loopinsight.com/wp-content/uploads/PhotosforOSX2-420x360.jpg)
What if the transition to the new Photos app provided a way for Apple to provide a free replacement for iPhone/Facebook users with the new IOS and OS-X systems while allowing third party creation of plug-ins to expand the program for more advanced photographers? Apple could allow third party developers to sell the plug-in enhancements to the new Photos program through the App Store and thus make a commission on them.
Any photographer wanting to enhance the new Photos app could pick and choose the plug-ins they felt they needed for their own custom software. Lens profiles for specific lenses, special filters, advanced sharpening tools, special effects like onOne software's Lightroom presets? Would this be possible? Feasible?
-
Surprisingly bitter-sounding for Thom!
-
Any photographer wanting to enhance the new Photos app could pick and choose the plug-ins they felt they needed for their own custom software. Lens profiles for specific lenses, special filters, advanced sharpening tools, special effects like onOne software's Lightroom presets? Would this be possible? Feasible?
Probably. And back to the bad old days of one app for finding your pictures, another for keywording, another for sharpening, a different UI for printing, another for slideshow...? Slow-learning cousin Nigel calls you to find out how to polish up his photos, and you can't help by pointing to this Aperture or Lightroom feature or doing it for him because he's got the NoiseCide app and you use another, NoiseKiller Pro or whatever. Feasible? Probably.
-
Probably. And back to the bad old days of one app for finding your pictures, another for keywording, another for sharpening, a different UI for printing, another for slideshow...? Slow-learning cousin Nigel calls you to find out how to polish up his photos, and you can't help by pointing to this Aperture or Lightroom feature or doing it for him because he's got the NoiseCide app and you use another, NoiseKiller Pro or whatever. Feasible? Probably.
Maybe it wouldn't have to be that way, John. It appears Apple is intending on using OS level resources for finding, key wording, rating and otherwise cataloging images. So that portion of the solution would not have to be convoluted or confusing.
It's possible (and I have no way of knowing) ... third party plugins could simplified further to be used in true extensibility. No need to exit one app to open another and roundtrip back to app 1.
Think of say Nik Define as just another subset of sliders in the Adjustment pane right in the Photos App ... working directly with the RAW image as if it were being done with an Adjustment Brick in Aperture. Granted ... everyone wouldn't end ups with identical "applications" ... but I always thought choice was good.
I would think such a method could be a boon for developers .... Apple creates the backbone and overall UI as well as does all the leg work on the initial RAW conversion ... third party developers, concentrate create the code and use Apple's API hooks for sliders, buttons, etc. ... Then the plugins/extensions are sold in the App Store. Everyone wins ... the end user, the third party developer and Apple ...
-
Surprisingly bitter-sounding for Thom!
We must not be reading the same article, I don’t detect any bitterness at all.
but my 2006 white iMac works just fine for what I need, so I am reluctant to upgrade hardware just to get RAW support for my camera, as I have no other reason to upgrade.
I understand not wanting to fix what ain’t broken, but I think you’d be more than pleasantly surprised at how much faster the new Macs are. If you’re in reasonable distance to an Apple Store, you should take a card with a few images in and run them through your workflow on one of their machines, just to see the difference. You can wipe the images off afterwards.
I suppose one could put a positive spin on it and say that they're actually trying to prevent losing customers. But if so, it's a pretty inept way to go about it. Then again, Apple has gone for so long without communicating in any other way than through major PR events, that it is quite possible they have nobody with any idea of how to organise a grass roots type of campaign.
A “grass roots campaign” for what? You know the term “astroturf”, right? How does any Fortune 500 firm run a “grass roots campaign” that isn’t immediately labeled astroturfing?
So back to my question, why make any statement and why make it now?
I’m going to make a wild guess: they got so many questions at and after WWDC about the future of Aperture that they finally decided it was time to officially pull the plug.
-
Surprisingly bitter-sounding for Thom!
Only for his points concerning Adobe ;)
-
I understand not wanting to fix what ain’t broken, but I think you’d be more than pleasantly surprised at how much faster the new Macs are. If you’re in reasonable distance to an Apple Store, you should take a card with a few images in and run them through your workflow on one of their machines, just to see the difference. You can wipe the images off afterwards.
Thanks, I might just try that out of curiosity, although I don't find my current machine slow, that is, not slow enough to make me consider upgrading just because of that. With a new iMac (27 inch, ca. $2000, or even the 21.5 inch at $1500), I could get Aperture 3.5 and probably be able to use it for a while, if the new Photos is not up to snuff. I'd have to hold at Mavericks though and have to put up with de-contented Pages and Numbers, which I use quite a bit.
If the new Photos never matches the Aperture "pro" functionality however, because Apple is not interested in that, then eventually I'd be where I am now, with a version of OS and Aperture that do not support some future RAW that I might be using. Except I'd be $2000 poorer and have a perfectly good white iMac collecting dust, a waste that would really grate. I'm tending to move to Lightroom or AfterShotPro (ex-Bibble) right now, get it over with. Those applications may also do something in the future I don't like but that's always true.
I don't expect Apple to have come looking for me to let me know that Lion was not going to support certain RAW formats in the future, but it seems to me that a policy statement somewhere on their site to let Lion+Aperture users know that they were ceasing RAW support after the Oly PL5 would have been nice, so that at least I would be able to plan. I looked today at the list of supported cameras for Lion and Mountain Lion and was able to deduce that they stopped updating RAW support in Lion, or it certainly looks that way. But there's not a word posted there that SAYS that's what they are doing. Why not? What kind of a way is that to treat your customers?
-
Only for his points concerning Adobe ;)
Sure, and it makes it a rather unbalanced article by his standards - he's just swallowed the Apple line. When any corporation puts out news via PR channels, you can bet the truth is awkward or unpleasant, can't you?
-
Sure, and it makes it a rather unbalanced article by his standards - he's just swallowed the Apple line. When any corporation puts out news via PR channels, you can bet the truth is awkward or unpleasant, can't you?
John, I don't think Thom can ever be credited for accepting what any corporation puts forth without question. He's shown equal disdain and disappointment across the board as needed. It seems in this instance ... he's willing to reserve judgment on Apple until after he can evaluate the whole offering.
And yes ... this whole reveal by Apple has been considerably awkward and very unpleasant. For all concerned.
-
And I wouldn't usually say that of him, but it's hook, line and sinker here. Reserving judgement or just giving Apple an easy ride?
-
Looks like I may be SOL regardless. Did some more digging and Apple has not extended raw support for several cameras in Lion even though they were updated for Mountain Lion. For instance, the Oly E-M1 raw support was provided for Mountain Lion but not Lion, so there is probably no hope for E-M10 RAW support for me. The last Olympus update in Lion was for the PL5. So, future Aperture development or not, I have to change something. I understand that companies may not want to support platforms forever, but my 2006 white iMac works just fine for what I need, so I am reluctant to upgrade hardware just to get RAW support for my camera, as I have no other reason to upgrade. I also know in my bones that supporting those RAW formats in Lion would be no big deal for them, but that's life.
Apple have no interest in maintaining backwards compatibility as they wouldn't be able to sell as many computers if they did that. :-\ The new free OSes are simply sneaky ways of making you buy a new machine, because it won't necessarily work on your currently perfectly fine computer.
-
Apple have no interest in maintaining backwards compatibility as they wouldn't be able to sell as many computers if they did that. :-\ The new free OSes are simply sneaky ways of making you buy a new machine, because it won't necessarily work on your currently perfectly fine computer.
Poppycock ... Apple is in no way perfect. They have their faults. But your analogy is flawed.
I currently have a 2007 Macbook Pro that is running Mavericks ... according to current info it is also listed as capable of running Yosemite. That's pretty darned good "backwards compatibility" ... conversely, ACR and Lightroom RAW file support won't even reach back a single version. By comparison, in this respect, Apple isn't quite the most restricting of developers.
-
I currently have a 2007 Macbook Pro that is running Mavericks ... according to current info it is also listed as capable of running Yosemite. That's pretty darned good "backwards compatibility" ... conversely, ACR and Lightroom RAW file support won't even reach back a single version. By comparison, in this respect, Apple isn't quite the most restricting of developers.
That's correct, I was just unlucky enough to buy the 2006 white iMac, which seems to have a hardware restriction on upgrades past Lion. Bad luck for me. I don't expect backwards compatibilty forever, can't be done, although separating out camera RAW support from the OS would have been my design choice. But as I said above, a policy statement on their Lion raw compatibility page STATING that they were stopping support after a certain date/version/camera would have been a better way to treat their customers. I'm sure they have their reasons. But so do I, and I bought Lightroom 5 last night after playing with it and AfterShotPro (discount deals at the moment, btw). Spending $80 or so on some software made a lot more sense than replacing hardware that still works fine.
-
That's correct, I was just unlucky enough to buy the 2006 white iMac, .....
Mate, your computer is 8 years old! If you bought a PC in 2006 you would probably be on your third. Apple hardware is great but you would be blown away by how fast the new machines are. The latest OS (which is free) runs on machines made in 2007 which is by computer standards unheard of. You probably should think about an upgrade and give it to someone.
-
Mate, your computer is 8 years old! If you bought a PC in 2006 you would probably be on your third. Apple hardware is great but you would be blown away by how fast the new machines are. The latest OS (which is free) runs on machines made in 2007 which is by computer standards unheard of. You probably should think about an upgrade and give it to someone.
My last PC laptop lasted longer than 8 years and never needed to go to the store for repairs unlike my MacPro [memory issues/graphics issues and crap and eventually binned DVD player], my MBP which was damaged by the recalled magsafe power supply, my iPad [faulty lightning connector] and my iPhone [utterly, utterly shit battery]. Windows backwards compatibility tends to be better as they actively try not to break compatibility.
-
Mate, your computer is 8 years old! If you bought a PC in 2006 you would probably be on your third. Apple hardware is great but you would be blown away by how fast the new machines are. The latest OS (which is free) runs on machines made in 2007 which is by computer standards unheard of. You probably should think about an upgrade and give it to someone.
:) Guilty as charged. I'm a cheapskate. If I had waited a few short months and bought my iMac at the same time as my wife bought hers, in early 2007, I wouldn't be having to make these decisions now. C'est la vie. I just hope that this is the worst thing that happens to me in my life. (I'm kind of liking Lightroom, btw.)
-
My last PC laptop lasted longer than 8 years and never needed to go to the store for repairs unlike my MacPro [memory issues/graphics issues and crap and eventually binned DVD player], my MBP which was damaged by the recalled magsafe power supply, my iPad [faulty lightning connector] and my iPhone [utterly, utterly shit battery]. Windows backwards compatibility tends to be better as they actively try not to break compatibility.
My goodness, if you have a PC laptop that lasted eight years and four consecutive failures of Apple products ... that run OS systems with built-in obsolescence ... I'd go running back to Windows with glee. With that kind of luck ...it may be in your best interest not to venture forth into Atlantic City or Las Vegas.
I've owned and used over 30 different Apple computers since 1993 (I owned and operated a custom color film lab for nearly 20 years) ... I used many more Apple computers in the employ of others ... I currently own three iPads, 2 iPod Touch units and have owned the iPhone 3g, 4s and 5s ... only one desktop has ever failed me ... and only one of the six Apple laptops I have ever owned had a component failure ... not one iOS unit has ever failed.
So, it would seem our experiences are unique and neither is the average or expected experience. The truth, as always is somewhere in the middle of the extremes. That middle is where Apple enjoys one of the highest customer satisfaction records for any company on the planet. They also have shown consistent, steady growth in desktop and laptop sales the past several years while the rest of the industry has experienced significant reductions or stagnant sales.
-
My goodness, if you have a PC laptop that lasted eight years and four consecutive failures of Apple products
That is not what I said. I wish people wouldn't misconstrue posts.
Apple have good customer satisfaction for two reasons.
They have shops that have truly excellent customers service, which is just as well with the steady stream of people bringing faulty goods back.
The other reason is that they sell very expensive products. Now the interesting thing about humans is that the more expensive a product is the less likely people are to admit there is an issue with their purchase and I'd guess you would be one of them. This is why Macolytes defending Apple products are so numerous compared to PC users who don't mind admitting their drawbacks of their usually much cheaper purchases and so there will be a systematic under reporting of Apple issues. Yet in casual conversations with many colleagues over the years who also use Macs I'd be hard pushed to think of one who hasn't let slip about problems they've had with their products and visits to the Apple store. As for me, the more expensive a product the more critical I am of it's failings - which is the more sensible response, rather than the usual refuse to admit that maybe one's purchase was not a good one.
Chris Sanderson's recent thread re his tales of woe to do with his new MacPro purchase is also worth reading and you seem to be ignoring the fact that Apple do recalls of items and are constantly doing bug fixes to sort out issues with their software. My policy with Apple is never ever use a v1 of anything, I wait until bug fix 3 or 4 with OSes [something that was also suggested to me by an Apple Genius whose job was to sort out Mac problems] just like with Windows I would wait until SP1 before upgrading to a new OS. And I wait till at least the 3rd revision of hardware as earlier version are usually crippled too much for me to consider.
Besides it gets really tiresome with people going on about how wonderful their very expensive computer is and how crappy all PCs are, despite the fact that you can get a pretty good PC for a fraction of the price of the cheapest Mac. And the cheapest Macs have always been a really poor purchase as normally they are lacking basics you'd find on a PC that costs 30% of the Mac. Not having CD/DVD writers when they were essential would be a typical feature cut from the 'affordable' Mac. Even above that you usually need to spec a higher machine than the base price, my MP came with 2Gb of memory when comparably priced PCs would have had 8-16GB+ of RAM. Plus these days you cannot upgrade from a cheaper source after purchase because you need to upgrade item at time of purchase. Which is makes say a £1700 laptop a £2500 purchase.
-
That is not what I said. I wish people wouldn't misconstrue posts.
That appears to be a two-way street.
I will rejoice in your obvious superior intellect and wisdom from afar.
-
That appears to be a two-way street.
Not really as I prefer to take care to read posts carefully before replying.
I will rejoice in your obvious superior intellect and wisdom from afar.
So you resort being rude and patronising as apparently you have nothing better to say.
-
Not really as I prefer to take care to read posts carefully before replying.
So you resort being rude and patronising as apparently you have nothing better to say.
What I shared is only truly "rude or patronizing" if you believe it to be true.
It matters little what I, or apparently anyone else offers on this subject, as you will insist you are the one and only arbiter of what is true and correct.
I'll just defer to your better judgement on the matter.
-
Regarding why Apple made the statement NOW, and via the back door (selective PR Calls)
I'm sure they did get questions about how Photos 'Fits' with Aperture, but my guess is that they learned a bit from the Final Cut Pro X debacle
The situation was somewhat similar -both Aperture and FCP had become Apps with loyal following in much need of an update.
When the much anticipated FCPx was delivered with no way to import current or legacy work, no multi-cam tec. it caused a huge uproar which caused Apple to reissue/update FCP7 (?) while they worked out the bugs in FCPx.
Luckily for the FCP users a lot of the uproar came from hollywood and Apple" helped out."
With most Aperture users expecting Aperture 4 or Aperture x, it could have resulted in a similar blow up.
By announcing it through the back door, a year early, they are betting we will squeal for a while and get over it.
Sadly they are probably right.
None of us have the right to expect a product to last forever, BUT, after years and 3 1/2 major versions, I do think we have the right to expect it to be updated until they can offer a true useable professional replacement.
Professional Applications are called that because many customers use them for business, from which they make a living. Apple seems to feel no concern about disrupting those businesses. They do it under the guise of technical progress. Technical progress is very important and we have all been beneficiaries of Apple's efforts. But technical progress, and making a genuine effort not to disrupt loyal customer's businesses are not mutually exclusive.
They can still fulfill their vision without disrupting our business. All they have to do is wait until the new application, or technology offers a true replacement of function before they kill the old product.
That would be a little less convenient for Apple, and sadly their obvious stance is that if there is Any inconvenience, it should be pushed onto customers.
They could and should do better.
Michael
-
the more expensive a product is the less likely people are to admit there is an issue with their purchase and I'd guess you would be one of them. This is why Macolytes defending Apple products are so numerous compared to PC users who don't mind admitting their drawbacks of their usually much cheaper purchases
Fair dinkum (as we say in Oz), that is the funniest thing I heard in a long while. Which text book on marketing did that one from?
-
Fair dinkum (as we say in Oz), that is the funniest thing I heard in a long while. Which text book on marketing did that one from?
That's not marketing, it is psychology. It's a specific kind of Choice Supportive Bias, amusingly it is sometimes referred to Buyer's Stockholm Syndrome. Not surprisingly on the wiki entry on this aspect of cognitive science, Apple is used as the prime example.
"For example, if a person buys a computer from Apple instead of a computer (PC) running Windows, he is likely to ignore or downplay the faults of Apple computers while amplifying those of Windows computers. Conversely, he is also likely to notice and amplify advantages of Apple computers and not notice or de-emphasize those of Windows computers."
There's also the Veblen Effect where increasing the price of luxury goods makes them more desirable. Tied into this is the fact that the more people pay for something the more they enjoy it and basically you've explained the annoying behaviour of Macolytes.
-
Slam dunk?
-
What I shared is only truly "rude or patronizing" if you believe it to be true.
So if say I were to call you a badly dressed muppet who smells of rotting fish, it's only an insult if you believe it to be true. Interesting er...'logic'.
It matters little what I, or apparently anyone else offers on this subject, as you will insist you are the one and only arbiter of what is true and correct.
I'll just defer to your better judgement on the matter.
And all because I dare to offer a less fawning view of how wonderful Apple is, which contradicts how too many Apple users think.
-
So if say I were to call you a badly dressed muppet who smells of rotting fish, it's only an insult if you believe it to be true. Interesting er...'logic'.
And all because I dare to offer a less fawning view of how wonderful Apple is, which contradicts how too many Apple users think.
You are the ultimate master of all knowledge ... we are just mere mortals in your presence.
-
None of us have the right to expect a product to last forever, BUT, after years and 3 1/2 major versions, I do think we have the right to expect it to be updated until they can offer a true useable professional replacement.
Professional Applications are called that because many customers use them for business, from which they make a living. Apple seems to feel no concern about disrupting those businesses. They do it under the guise of technical progress. Technical progress is very important and we have all been beneficiaries of Apple's efforts. But technical progress, and making a genuine effort not to disrupt loyal customer's businesses are not mutually exclusive.
They can still fulfill their vision without disrupting our business. All they have to do is wait until the new application, or technology offers a true replacement of function before they kill the old product.
That would be a little less convenient for Apple, and sadly their obvious stance is that if there is Any inconvenience, it should be pushed onto customers.
They could and should do better.
Michael
Well put. The long-term effect of behaving like that is that your customers won't trust you in the future. But maybe they don't care, and why should they? There seem to be lots of people who are more than willing to go along with whatever the vendors want. I know people who upgrade their cell/smart phones for reasons of what is basically fashion. I guess there's no reason for them to care about people who don't want to continuously spend money. That treadmill seems to generate lots of income.
It's too bad that the camera manufacturer software isn't better than it is, because if it was, people could use it to translate their RAW into NDG, and then use whatever photo tools they liked most. Maybe a lot of people are doing exactly that, I don't know. I wasn't paying attention, I guess, and got caught by their stopping of RAW support in Lion.
-
Hasn't it been pretty clear for a long time that Apple has been purposely transforming itself from a maker of niche education and arts business tools into a generic consumer tech company? Heck, I use Apple products every day, but I hold no illusion that they are tightly tied to the graphics art world anymore.
-
I also think Apple have done this as they HAVE learned from the FCP-X launch debacle.
A debacle from which the actual product comes up smelling of roses in the end. Going back to FCP6 from FCP-X feels like a twenty year regression, because it is.
This IS the way Apple does things. When they decide something has reached the end of its usefulness, they cut it loose. I remember the howls of outrage when a Mac first came out without a floppy drive, and again when one came out without DVD drive, or Firewire, and when the iPhone changed its power connector for a physically smaller unit that was no longer the limiting factor on the dimensions of the device itself. (iWatch with old style connector? No way).
It doesn't make for a smooth ride as a professional using their kit day in day out to do work. Sometimes they throw away very good functionality and drastically dumb down (eg recent iWork revamp) leaving them temporarily with a significantly inferior offering.
But it DOES mean that they can cut loose from all the accumulated cruft of legacy developments and decade-old design decisions whose usefulness have been surpassed.
My observation is that after a bit of grumbling and moaning, the new stuff offers enough good points to be worth a try.
And can turn out to do the limited subset of stuff it does much more efficiently than it did before.
And can be very shiny.
Whether Photos develops into anything remotely useful for professional photographers remains to be seen.
My guess is that it'll do like most of the rest of Apple's portfolio- it'll give you 80% of the results for 40% of the effort. Getting the final 20% of polish/functionality will be a pain in the ass. If your workflow or customers genuinely need that missing functionality you'll have to go to a specialist to find it, either different package or plug-ins.
For a lot of people, me included, that tradeoff between ease/speed and ultimate capability works out well, on balance.
FCP-X is demonstrably faster to edit with for mere mortals like myself and my wife. We just edited and graded an hour-long RED 4K movie in two days. That would have been inconceivable with FCP6/7 plus Resolve; the transcode time alone would have taken that long. We were several minutes into the editing the story before the footage even finished importing.
Pages still works absolutely fine for me for what I use it for- writing stuff down legibly so I can print it or send it around to people as a PDF, usually in Apple's default formatting (which is nice enough). If I were I specialist book publisher or author, I'd doubtless feel different.
So I'd say, sadly, Aperture getting canned is entirely in character for Apple.
What they may have learned is that they need to give us a heads-up about these things, not just say "you can't buy the old version as of this morning" which I think was really the cock-up with FCP.
So my bet is they'll bring out Photos to general derision but with enough functionality a year down the line that a lot of generalists, even professional generalists like me, might find it worth checking out.
For everyone else, there's C1 Pro or LR5.
Cheers, Hywel.
-
Slam dunk?
Nah, just more laughs. Something a nameless person read on the Internet. LMAO.
It is always funny when people who don't like Apple products come onto an Apple forum to expend their knowledge of Google.
-
Or are you laughing to hide your embarrassment? Never heard of the Veblen Effect? It predates Google by a few years, you know.
-
... Apple seems to feel no concern about disrupting those businesses. They do it under the guise of technical progress....
You made it sound like Apple will some how make Aperture stop functioning any day now. This can not be further from the truth.
The fact is that you can still buy Aperture today, and it will still function tomorrow. It will continue to support new cameras as Apple releases new RAW support at the system level. Apple has promised that Aperture will run under the new OS X, which means Aperture will continue to functions in the next few years even if you keep up with the latest OS updates. I don't understand how your business is going to be disrupted. To me, it sounds like there will be several years of transition time before Aperture will not work under the newest OS.
-
Serious? My fabourite theory is the is the two shooter theory, closely followed by Rosswell.
My observations are that people who have money didn't get that way by giving it away or becoming wimps about buying things that don't work. They can afford lawyers and know their rights.
The company I worked for until recently turned over $60Billion and could afford lots of IT support, but they still changed PCs every 3 years. For most professional users, they have no IT staff. A computer is a tool, it is not a hobby to pull apart and see how it works. That's why I buy a Mac. The last one was still working when I gave it away after 5 years. Return on investment.
-
Hasn't it been pretty clear for a long time that Apple has been purposely transforming itself from a maker of niche education and arts business tools into a generic consumer tech company? Heck, I use Apple products every day, but I hold no illusion that they are tightly tied to the graphics art world anymore.
You're right, that trend was apparent. OTOH, they also continued to sell and support applications that were obviously designed to appeal to "pro" users (however that's defined). Just because they decided to pursue a new market, why does it necessarily mean they have to abandon an old market. There's room for both, I would have thought, but that's their business. And as someone else on this thread pointed out, maybe they haven't. They seem to be allowing enough time for people to transition, and that maybe by that time, Photos will be "pro"-usable. But then they should say that. People's business decisions depend on that. I can understand what professionals who rely on these tools for their livelihood would be nervous when they don't hear those words.
My own (and my personal beef) is only that they stopped supporting new RAW formats in Lion and didn't tell anyone that's what they were doing. I faced a situation where if I wanted to continue to use Aperture, I'd have to replace a perfectly usable hardware platform because new RAW support in Lion was halted. There was some (mild) criticism that it was somehow "wrong" that I should expect a 8-year old computer to still work for me. As if I did something wrong because I wasn't following the Apple game plan.
-
My own (and my personal beef) is only that they stopped supporting new RAW formats in Lion and didn't tell anyone that's what they were doing. I faced a situation where if I wanted to continue to use Aperture, I'd have to replace a perfectly usable hardware platform because new RAW support in Lion was halted. There was some (mild) criticism that it was somehow "wrong" that I should expect a 8-year old computer to still work for me. As if I did something wrong because I wasn't following the Apple game plan.
I can relate. I also own a 24" 2006 iMac 2.16Ghz machine. It runs great. Unfortunately, it's hardware configuration will no longer support newer, advanced code in order to run the latest OS. When I purchased it, I never fully expected it to be relevant eight years after it was offered. I also never expected it to be fully supported this far down the road. It is no secret that ALL tech companies reach a crossroads where implementing new more advanced features also includes abandoning some of the legacy offerings of the past. For Apple that crossroad, it was seven years back. For Adobe , they sever ties with each full point release of Lightroom. They will not back pedal even one generation which turns out to be 1.5 - 2 years max. In my estimation, the 2006 iMac I now use for tasks that no longer include RAW image processing, has brought a return on investment many times over the price of admission. It's not as though I am being slighted by Apple.
You did nothing wrong. Frankly, Apple did nothing wrong either. It's just the luck of the draw. More than likely, the next generation of OS X past Yosemite will not be able to support back to 2007 architectures ... Time and technology never stands still. We must all keep going forward or we will always remain locked in the past. No matter the longevity of the hardware we are fond of.
-
You did nothing wrong. Frankly, Apple did nothing wrong either. It's just the luck of the draw. More than likely, the next generation of OS X past Yosemite will not be able to support back to 2007 architectures ... Time and technology never stands still. We must all keep going forward or we will always remain locked in the past. No matter the longevity of the hardware we are fond of.
Agreed. It grates a little that simply buying a new camera means this many potential platform changes, but as you say, that's life. But I bought Lightroom (v.5) the other evening and it understands my new camera's RAW. I can't "see" the E-M10's ORF images in Finder or Preview, but I can live with that. I used to use Preview for my first cull, now I use LR instead. Just means pressing different buttons.
As an ex-software engineer, I'd question the system design decision to tie RAW format to the O/S, but I'm sure they had their reasons. At some point, Yosemite will support RAW formats that are no longer supported on the Mavericks platform, and some other guys (like me) will be annoyed by that in 2-3 years' time.
In one of my other entries in this thread, I mentioned the idea of using the camera manufacturer's RAW converter to create DNG files and then import those files into one's photo application of choice. That workflow could insulate one from some of these disruptions. At least you know that the software you get when you buy a camera will always understand its RAW. To be honest, other than using DPP when I bought a Canon G3 years ago, I've never even looked at the software that came with the cameras. I wonder if there are undiscovered gems there. For amateur fun users like me, that workflow might be fine. I might look at that, but frankly, downloading and testing software is not something I do for fun, only when I have to.
Btw, to complete a thought from an older post, I did download and try out AfterShopPro (formerly Bibble) the other day. It's ok, not quite up to snuff with Aperture 3 or Lr5, probably at the Aperture 2 level, but that's VERY roughly speaking. It's 1/3 of the price of Lr5 (here in Canada).
-
Here's my thought of the day:
Apple has never been in the 'pro' or 'niche' market. Mac's mission from day 1 has been 'for the rest of us.' Remember MacDraw or MacWrite? Those are easy to use programs (I guess I should call them apps now) so that common people can use them to produce professional looking documents without spending a lot more money to hire pros (secretaries (can we still use this word?) and illustrators) and using expensive equipment (type-setting) to produce similar results.
Fast forward to Aperture. Although it was originally marketed as a 'pro' app, it was really simple and streamlined so that everyman like me can do sophisticated image adjustment and management without using complicated and expensive 'pro' apps like Photoshop. When its price dropped to less than $80, you know it's not for the pros. Pros use it just because it's capable enough to produce the results they want.
Don't forget that even the original Photoshop was meant to be a common man's tool so an average user can do complicated image manipulation without hiring a professional illustrator to do that using pen and paper or in a dark room. Over time, it has evolved into a monstrosity and no longer for an average consumer.
So here we are, Apple has decided yet again to try something new with consumer photo tools. From what I've read, it's going to be something interesting. For others who would rather stick to the old model, there's always Adobe.
-
You are the ultimate master of all knowledge ... we are just mere mortals in your presence.
And you are a patronising tosspot it would seem. Each to his own I guess.
-
It is no secret that ALL tech companies reach a crossroads where implementing new more advanced features also includes abandoning some of the legacy offerings of the past. For Adobe , they sever ties with each full point release of Lightroom. They will not back pedal even one generation which turns out to be 1.5 - 2 years max.
How do you reckon that is the case?
-
How do you reckon that is the case?
Well, with RAW support at least it's the case. Once Lr 6 is released, No Lr 5.x version will get new RAW support. You can use DNG converter of course, but I'm not interested in using DNG files instead of camera manufacturer RAW files (that's another debate of course...).
-
Well, with RAW support at least it's the case. Once Lr 6 is released, No Lr 5.x version will get new RAW support. You can use DNG converter of course, but I'm not interested in using DNG files instead of camera manufacturer RAW files (that's another debate of course...).
So Adobe [unlike just about everyone else] make sure no-one gets left behind by providing a free utility for those who choose not to upgrade and somehow they are the bad guys. A Canikon or whatever file converted to DNG raw file is still a raw file.
-
So Adobe [unlike just about everyone else] make sure no-one gets left behind by providing a free utility for those who choose not to upgrade and somehow they are the bad guys. A Canikon or whatever file converted to DNG raw file is still a raw file.
Exactly right! Adobe goes out of it's way not to force you to update by virtue of DNG, how are they the bad guys? They could do the opposite. You own LR5, you buy a new camera which it doesn't support. There's no DNG. You have to upgrade. And that updated raw that can't work in the older converter is due to the people making the raw! They are the bad guys here.
-
Interestingly enough, most raw converters support DNG. RawTherapee and RawDeveloper are sme of the better known ones.
Regarding DNG, DNG can embed a bitwise copy of the original raw file. So you can both eat the cake and still have it.
Best regards
Erik
Exactly right! Adobe goes out of it's way not to force you to update by virtue of DNG, how are they the bad guys? They could do the opposite. You own LR5, you buy a new camera which it doesn't support. There's no DNG. You have to upgrade. And that updated raw that can't work in the older converter is due to the people making the raw! They are the bad guys here.
-
So Adobe [unlike just about everyone else] make sure no-one gets left behind by providing a free utility for those who choose not to upgrade and somehow they are the bad guys. A Canikon or whatever file converted to DNG raw file is still a raw file.
Don't recall anyone here labeling either mentioned developer as "the bad guy" ... only that ALL software developers place limits on support for proprietary RAW files for new cameras. Some users are always going to experience being left out. While a DNG may be considered a RAW file, not all users are inclined to make the conversions. For very legitimate reasons.
Though Adobe does offer the DNG converter for free, Apple has also offered their last two versions of OS X for free (I'm counting Mavericks that is now on public beta) and has never charged Aperture/iPhoto users for Camera RAW updates.
This comparison does not make either developer a "bad guy" only different in how their users get what they need to work with their images.
-
So Adobe [unlike just about everyone else] ... A Canikon or whatever file converted to DNG raw file is still a raw file.
Sure, but it's also missing some information. In particular, metadata about focus points is removed, or is no longer usable, in DNG files that are converted from Canon or Nikon raw files. There may be more data missing but I haven't done extensive testing. For those who use the functionality on occasion (I did use it in Aperture), DNG is an inferior solution to the original raw files.
-
Apple has also offered their last two versions of OS X for free (I'm counting Mavericks that is now on public beta) and has never charged Aperture/iPhoto users for Camera RAW updates.
This is partially true. With OS X, the raw updates do come with the OS. However is is also true that at some point, Apple puts a base version of Aperture you must have to use this raw support. If you are still using Aperture 2.x, even though OS X has support for the latest cameras (or close to it), you can't use them in Aperture 2.x though you can in Aperture 3.5.1.
But in general Apple gives raw updates for Aperture for 1-2 years back, while Adobe stops adding new cameras the day a new major version comes out. You can use DNG but that has the drawbacks as I mentioned above (it strips some OEM metadata that I personally use, and have noticed). I tend to be an early adopter and thus wouldn't stay on an old software version when a new one came out, modulo huge work-stopping bugs, so I may be less angry about this than some ;)
-
Sure, but it's also missing some information. In particular, metadata about focus points is removed, or is no longer usable, in DNG files that are converted from Canon or Nikon raw files.
What jjj is correctly saying is the raw data is still raw after the conversion which is kind of important. As for the metadata, there should be the ability to store that in the DNG container and the question I'd have is, can other raw converters use that metadata (IOW, is it not proprietary?).
-
What jjj is correctly saying is the raw data is still raw after the conversion which is kind of important. As for the metadata, there should be the ability to store that in the DNG container and the question I'd have is, can other raw converters use that metadata (IOW, is it not proprietary?).
I don't know for certain. I know that the Canon software reads them (as you'd expect), and Aperture reads them. Same with the Nikon software and Aperture.
What I don't know is whether Apple got access to undocumented information from the camera vendors. It may be that rooting around with exiftool would lend data but I wasn't that curious - I just noticed on some images that I converted to DNG that this info disappeared. That made me wonder what other information may have been stripped, so that concern was sufficient reason for me to not use DNGs.
-
What I don't know is whether Apple got access to undocumented information from the camera vendors. It may be that rooting around with exiftool would lend data but I wasn't that curious - I just noticed on some images that I converted to DNG that this info disappeared. That made me wonder what other information may have been stripped, so that concern was sufficient reason for me to not use DNGs.
As I explained in another thread recently, the metadata is actually intact (not stripped), but Aperture is not reading it from the DNG. Still, I understand your point about your workflow being broken in this case.
-
As I explained in another thread recently, the metadata is actually intact (not stripped), but Aperture is not reading it from the DNG. Still, I understand your point about your workflow being broken in this case.
Well you would know ;) Thanks for the clarification.
Hopefully Lightroom gets the ability to view it in the future. I like the functionality, and it seems like all roads are heading in this direction.