Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Other Raw Converters => Apple Aperture Q&A => Topic started by: Bob Rockefeller on February 17, 2015, 05:50:28 pm
-
If Photos is only destined to be a replacement for iPhoto and not for Aperture, options besides Lightroom look poor. C1 is a good RAW processor and a lousy DAM. Everything else is only marginally functional at best.
I'm afraid to imagine that Lightroom is going to be in many ex-Aperture users futures. :(
-
I started with Aperture, then moved to Lightroom long time ago, simply because I found LR superior in most respects. In other words, no need to be afraid :)
-
You will be assimilated? Hmm.
This doesn't often happen, but I am in complete agreement with Slobodan :) . Lightroom is a very usable application.
-
Having used both Lightroom and Aperture quite a bit, I have found neither option was ever perfect. I can take a shoot, large or small, from import to delivery just as easily in either app.
Lr has more options and better treatments for lens correction, noise reduction and overall RAW processing including the ability to quickly and easily create custom Camera Calibration profiles. There are a few key plugins that make life easier like built-in FTP transfers (using the free plugin found in the SDK). The Print module is likely the best work on a single function Adobe has ever produced ... IMHO. How they could get the Print module so right, from the start ... and the Slideshow and Book modules so wrong have me convinced these modules could not possibly have been created by the same corporation ... let alone found in the same application.
Aperture is (even now) far superior for books and slideshows. Aperture's ability to create custom keyboard shortcuts that make sense to the user is invaluable and unheard of elsewhere to the extent Apple offers such customization.
I know most avid Aperture users like to believe that Aperture is the better choice for "organizing" ... but I personally think Lr and Aperture are dead even with DAM ... if you desire to put your fingers on a specific image quickly and efficiently. I can get to what I am seeking equally well in either option.
Again ... neither option is perfect or totally superior ... and more often than not, when users are passionate about which app is superior ... it really has little to do with definitive advantages and more to do with familiarity of how to get there ... working in a strange, unfamiliar app does not equate that the new app is "wrong" ... it's just different.
In the end, there are few options that will come close to replace Aperture other than Lightroom. There will be some things that users will have to give up ... but it's not all bad.
Myself, I will use both as needed until Aperture will no longer function. As each year goes by, books/albums (at least print versions) are seeing less enthusiasm commercially so I won't need that option as much. Since producing more video, I have moved more of my slideshow work to Final Cut Pro X ... so surviving in the absence of Aperture should be possible.
-
I'm afraid to imagine that Lightroom is going to be in many ex-Aperture users futures. :(
Afraid?
What of?
Lightroom is an excellent tool.
It actually works.
Tony Jay
-
We, as Mac users, are spoiled with the wealth of raw converters. It sounds like the need to have a DAM, and particularly one that is integrated into the raw converter, is the constraint in this tale of woe.
I do not use a DAM and do not keyword or label everything I shoot. However, there are perfectly viable alternatives to Lightroom that will do all of this. Photo Mechanic is an example. Once you uncouple the DAM from your raw converter, you can experiment with applications that focus on raw conversions to find which one(s) is(are) the best for your needs.
In addition to LR and CaptureOne, these come to mind, in no particular order:
Iridient Developer (download the current beta - it is very nice)
Raw Photo Processor
Raw Therapee
DXO
Fast Raw Viewer is an incredibly powerful tool for viewing and culling raw image files and integrates nicely with raw converters, especially LR/ACR (it will write compatible XML files) and RPP (it will write RPPS files). You can assess the raw file in real-time, not a preview or a full-rendering that takes time to produce.
In other words, you have options. Unfortunately, some Aperture users have workflows built around Aperture and need backward compatibility or something that will assimilate Aperture libraries and metadata, etc. If that is the case, then LR and C1 are the only two solutions that seem to be attempting to accommodate Aperture users in this regard.
They all have learning curves and advantages/disadvantages. If you simply refuse to adopt LR, then these alternatives are worth a look. I, personally, do not use LR very often - not out of spite, but mostly because I do not need most what the application offers and find that its raw conversion is average at best compared to other converters.
Aperture also still works, but I understand the desire to start planning for obsolescence.
kirk
-
It sounds like the need to have a DAM, and particularly one that is integrated into the raw converter, is the constraint in this tale of woe.
It's not a constraint. Rather, Aperture and Lightroom demonstrated the advantages of combining management with adjustment and output features in a single unified package. Those who have seen these benefits aren't that chuffed about having to go back to previous workflows that resembled a daisy chain where you used a glorified Finder (eg PhotoMechanic) to review and tag your pictures (at least those that are online) but found it couldn't display their adjusted state, another program to do the raw conversion, Photoshop too, maybe another to generate slideshows, another to control printing.... And they don't see a Photos.app surrounded by a pack of plugins - if Apple ever get round to releasing an Extensions SDK - as any less of Heath Robinson or Rube Goldberg workflow.
-
if Apple ever get round to releasing an Extensions SDK - as any less of Heath Robinson or Rube Goldberg workflow.
Yeah ... you're probably right ... most developers usually release an SDK before they release v1 of an app. :) Especially when we will be about six months away from the next OS version after Photos is released for public use. Was there ever a substantial SDK for Lr v1 or did that come with Lr 2.0?
I'm not sure if Photos will ever be the dream hub I and many others hope it is capable of ... though, I am willing to give Apple some time to see if it indeed is possible.
If I could use an app like photos as the centerpiece of my RAW image workflow along with production pieces from other developers that I prefer in a more seamless fashion, that would be awesome.
That's why I had high hopes for Lightroom at it's inception ... I had hoped that Adobe would have opened up the "modular" aspect to third party developers. If the Lr team focused purely on Library, Develop and Print ... then let the market place worry about less universal functions like Maps, Faces, Web, Slideshows and Books, etc. etc. I think Lr would be an even better solution. In that respect, Lr is a closed box with a lot of wasted space that few users employ fully.
-
Yeah ... you're probably right ... most developers usually release an SDK before they release v1 of an app. :)
I'm not sure that's so, but the delay of the SDK seems a pretty clear indication that Photos.app isn't intended to replace Aperture. But even if it develops as a hub, I wonder how convincing the workflow could ever be. Ap and Lr present users with a coherent set of tasks to process images, and generally a single way to do each task, while a hub and extension workflow is going to be much more confusing and amorphous.
I had hoped that Adobe would have opened up the "modular" aspect to third party developers.
That was the impression one always had. I don't really have any thoughts about why that never happened, though it may be that Adobe felt no-one wanted to come to the party. Nik, for example, were gobbled by Google before a Silver Efex module could ever be mooted.
-
John, I understand your philosophy of maintaining a monolith type of app that is mostly one-stop-shop ... unfortunately, I don't think a one-size-fits-all solution is the best concept either.
While Lr is definitely the lesser of all evils for the largest number of users desiring such a solution ... it is far from ideal or perfect. Even though it is capable of "coherent" workflow ... that workflow is limited to the specific capabilities of the app ... almost forced upon the user. If a user desires to utilize an alternate solution they still face a "confusing and amorphous" alternative.
To me, there is little difference to employing an extension that references my RAW images directly with Photos (even if only speaking theoretically) or exporting files from Lightroom to utilize an alternate solution for say a slideshow or designing a wedding album.
-
Monolithic - or integrated?
-
Monolithic - or integrated?
The term of choice is really inconsequential if users are tied to limited or lesser options. Integration is of little use if the components don't offer the desired goal. In it's current sate, Lightroom hampers and limits users and at the very least creates much more work than necessary. To me, that is a high cost for the sake of unification. I don't think a truly more modular solution would be that confusing or problematic.
-
Well, the choice of term can either be pejorative or positive. We were in a modular workflow before Aperture and Lightroom, and was it really that great? Some of us concocted coherent workflows, but Ap/LR succeeded because many failed to figure out how to get metadata read in each app or see adjustments in their cataloguing apps, and it will be the same when you're expected to bolt on a series of extensions. Integrated apps don't prevent us using specialist apps when needed, but quite how many extensions are you going to need to strap onto Photos.app when it won't even allow you to apply star ratings?
-
... how many extensions are you going to need to strap onto Photos.app when it won't even allow you to apply star ratings?
Maybe only one ... maybe a dozen ... we won't know until we see it evolve.
How soon we forget that Aperture or Lightroom were not created overnight. They had to be formulated in concept, then constructed to perform. One thing is for sure, given a pathway, independent developers are awesome at offering solutions.
In time, I may end up agreeing with you 100% when it comes to Photos and potential extensibility ... but as I did with Lightroom and Aperture ... I waited until I actually put the apps through the paces and used them in my workflow before I reached a lasting opinion on their merits. If I had judged either on cursory observations without allowing Adobe and Apple to expand upon their initial offerings.
Photos is still in it's very first developer beta ... what comes next is anybody's guess ... I'm going to wait and see what transpires over the next year or so before making a judgement.
Had I closed my mind about FCP X with it's initial release ... I'd be missing out on a very substantial portion of my current video workflow ... I'm glad I had the patience to give Apple the opportunity to flesh out the app. I'd be lost without it and have much less cash in my pocket if I would be using other options. :)
-
Sure, I agree it's speculation, but I think one can decide much more quickly. I recall that as soon as I heard Aperture 1.0's specs, and certainly once I saw it, it seemed obvious that combining management, adjustment and output was the way forward. Similarly with Lightroom. And equally, I think I know a turkey when I see one coming.
Of course, I'm not a big Apple fan, and I don't like OS-limited solutions in principle, but it's not just me who is pessimistic about Photos.app. Have you seen this post (https://thephotosexpert.com/tips/2015/2/12/photos-what-it-what-it-isnt-what-it-shall-be#.VOTlEnZmBPE) on the former Aperture Expert site? "Plainly put — I no longer believe that serious Aperture users should expect Photos to replace their photography management and editing needs. I am now recommending that advanced and professional users begin to explore other options."
-
Sure, I agree it's speculation, but I think one can decide much more quickly. I recall that as soon as I heard Aperture 1.0's specs, and certainly once I saw it, it seemed obvious that combining management, adjustment and output was the way forward. Similarly with Lightroom. And equally, I think I know a turkey when I see one coming.
Of course, I'm not a big Apple fan, and I don't like OS-limited solutions in principle, but it's not just me who is pessimistic about Photos.app. Have you seen this post (https://thephotosexpert.com/tips/2015/2/12/photos-what-it-what-it-isnt-what-it-shall-be#.VOTlEnZmBPE) on the former Aperture Expert site? "Plainly put — I no longer believe that serious Aperture users should expect Photos to replace their photography management and editing needs. I am now recommending that advanced and professional users begin to explore other options."
Geez John ... I don't think I ever advised anyone to rely upon Photos ... for any purpose. While the concept of Aperture and Lightroom workflow potential seemed very obvious to you early on ... you are also well aware that even today, after a decade of development, some users have difficulty in embracing that potential.
Of course Photos v1 is not going to be any kind of solution to replace Aperture or compete with Lr in any significant way in the near future. Heck, the first version will likely disappoint many advanced iPhoto users.
Everyone seems to have an unceasing desire to be among the throngs jumping on the band wagon to deride Photos and toss it in the bin before it has actually ever been released in a finished form. Before they have actually used the app. I doubt the engineers crunching the code today actually know with any certainty what the app will offer in the coming months or year or so.
All I am saying is I see merit in the concept and am keeping an open mind while I follow it's progress. The same as I had hopes for the Lr modular concept. Eventually, I'm hoping a serious developer will finally get it right. There certainly is no harm in that.
I may eventually concur with your assumptions at some point in the future. However, I'm going to keep an open mind about the Photos app and reserve judgement about that potential until I have actually used at least one slider in the app.
If some folks take issue with that ... well .........
-
If Aperture does die without a suitable replacement then I won't be going to Lightroom, even though I have it. The interface is horrible compared to Aperture. Capture One is much better and also has a migration tool.
-
If the last three OS are any indication, Photos will be heavily oriented to iOS for iPhone and iPad. Apple doesn't give a s--- about desktop anymore. I'm so irritated with Mavericks I could go with Linux if I could understand any of it.
-
...then I won't be going to Lightroom, even though I have it. The interface is horrible compared to Aperture. Capture One is much better and also has a migration tool.
Oh no, you're incorrect: The Aperture interface is horrible, and Capture One's only real function is to be the the thing that studio pros have around for the clients to watch during shooting.
Just kidding...I actually feel that the interface is merely annoying.
As a Lightroom user from the beginning(Aperture wouldn't work on my PowerPC-equipped Mac at the time), there was one very nice thing about Aperture: It ran fast on Macs.
The 36MP raw file preview generation that takes Lightroom 16 seconds on my computer takes four or five seconds in Aperture.
-
Oh no, you're incorrect: The Aperture interface is horrible, and Capture One's only real function is to be the the thing that studio pros have around for the clients to watch during shooting.
Just kidding...I actually feel that the interface is merely annoying.
As a Lightroom user from the beginning(Aperture wouldn't work on my PowerPC-equipped Mac at the time), there was one very nice thing about Aperture: It ran fast on Macs.
The 36MP raw file preview generation that takes Lightroom 16 seconds on my computer takes four or five seconds in Aperture.
Interesting that you don't like the Aperture interface though you say it is 4 times faster. That is probably because the raw conversion is done in the operating system and not dependant on Adobe. Anyway, my opinion is my opinion and if you have one then you probably just need to say yours. Phase One users would be interested in your comment on CaptureOne. If CaptureOne is only used by pros in studios to make real money then that is what I want to do. Cheers.
-
So why did Apple drop Aperture? My guess is it never could compete with LR and Apple decided to give up the effort. Aperture was never going to be profitable. I used C1 from the beginning, but gave it up after V4. LR is a fine app used by most wedding pros because it is quick, stable, and properly supported by Adobe--unlike Apple's support of Aperture. It also has numerous third party plugin apps. Personally, I like the speed I can cull through 1000's of images.
C1 was a very unstable application from V4 on and still has some odd quirks. Better in some ways to LR and lacking in others. IMO these are the only 2 viable options. Of course you can do it all in PS and Bridge, but it is a more expensive option, though a more full featured app.
-
It always makes me laugh when people worry about Apple's profitability and guess about reasons why they do things. Apple does not need to make a profit on each part because they own the whole.
Comparing version 4 to version 8 is a wild comparison. Lightroom early versions were pretty bad too. Photoshop and Lightroom have completely different purposes.
Yes Lightroom is a viable option for Aperture users (if they need to migrate), it's just not mine.
-
... and properly supported by Adobe--unlike Apple's support of Aperture. It also has numerous third party plugin apps. Personally, I like the speed I can cull through 1000's of images.
As someone who actually does use Aperture and Lightroom ... not in theory or the distant past ... and at the risk of using bad grammar ... you couldn't be more wrong.
If you had ever had the need to shoot tethered with Lightroom, especially with a new(er) camera model ... if you ever had to create a book/album with and send it to your favorite printer Aperture not only does that, but you can get plugins for many of the world's high end album printers and binders. If you ever have the need to create a true custom multi-media slideshow with timeline type control using multiple audio, image and video sources ... working directly with your RAW images ... you wouldn't be using Lightroom. ... you would soon discover just how properly supported Lightroom is.
Adobe drags their feet about 4-6 months behind Apple in offering tethered support. Apple adds support for tethering usually on the same day they offer RAW support for new cameras ... The Slideshow module in Lightroom is a crude, lame attempt at only wastes your time as compared to the feature set Aperture offers for slideshows. Not to mention the Lightroom for anyone who wishes to print a book/album with anyone other than Blurb, the module is nothing more than a cruel joke.
Plugins? Most third party image processing plugins from the likes of Nik/Google, onOne and Topaz work with Aperture.
Speed? Guess you have never had to work on deadline for publication where you literally only have minutes to an hour to speed through several hundred to several thousand images. In this respect, Lightroom can't hold a candle to Aperture. Lr has never been speedy compared to several other options ... just ask any photojournalist/sportshooter why they have adopted Photo Mechanic (an additional $150 investment) to work the front end of their workflow. Aperture is even faster than PM in some respects plus offers many more options.
While it is true Apple dropped Aperture, and we can all speculate as to the reasons why ... Let's at least be honest with our assessments of the true capabilities of Aperture and not base those assessments on fictitious and false conjecture.
-
Geez John ... I don't think I ever advised anyone to rely upon Photos ... for any purpose. While the concept of Aperture and Lightroom workflow potential seemed very obvious to you early on ... you are also well aware that even today, after a decade of development, some users have difficulty in embracing that potential.
After hundreds of years some people still cannot dance in time to music. Should we alter music to suit them? ;)
Many people struggle with software because they have not been shown how to use it correctly and even then some folks will struggle just as others do with dancing. All of us are rubbish at something, for some that is using software.
Everyone seems to have an unceasing desire to be among the throngs jumping on the band wagon to deride Photos and toss it in the bin before it has actually ever been released in a finished form. Before they have actually used the app. I doubt the engineers crunching the code today actually know with any certainty what the app will offer in the coming months or year or so.
A photo organising programme that doesn't even have star rating, deserves utter contempt for that along. No bandwagons are needed to hitch to.
Typical Apple attempting to simplify things by reducing options/capabilities which instead makes the product simplistic and actually harder to use.
-
John, I understand your philosophy of maintaining a monolith type of app that is mostly one-stop-shop ... unfortunately, I don't think a one-size-fits-all solution is the best concept either.
As John has said, integrated, not monolithic. Also if you seem to be confusing Apple and Adobe. Apple is very much the epitome of one size fits all. Take Apple's 'Photos' Vs Adobe's Photoshop/Photoshop Elements/Lightroom/Bridge.
While Lr is definitely the lesser of all evils for the largest number of users desiring such a solution ... it is far from ideal or perfect.
Name me a programme that is, please.
Even though it is capable of "coherent" workflow ... that workflow is limited to the specific capabilities of the app ... almost forced upon the user.
Like every single programme ever written.
If a user desires to utilize an alternate solution they still face a "confusing and amorphous" alternative.
Eh?
-
A photo organising programme that doesn't even have star rating, deserves utter contempt for that along.
I can agree with that assumption ... to a point. So far though, Photos is only in it's very first developer beta version. Could you point to a definitive and absolute reference that Photos will never have such an option to that Apple will refuse to add such capability in later versions?
It's very easy and actually effortless to formulate an opinion based upon incomplete information. How easy we forget some of the very same comments were offered up in the early days of discussion for auto exposure, auto focus, DSLR cameras ... and even Lightroom. None of which were really as productive, reliable or universally accepted as they are today.
-
As John has said, integrated, not monolithic. Also if you seem to be confusing Apple and Adobe. Apple is very much the epitome of one size fits all. Take Apple's 'Photos' Vs Adobe's Photoshop/Photoshop Elements/Lightroom/Bridge.
Name me a programme that is, please.
Like every single programme ever written.
Eh?
So ... I take it you are extremely bored today ... ;)
-
I can agree with that assumption ... to a point. So far though, Photos is only in it's very first developer beta version. Could you point to a definitive and absolute reference that Photos will never have such an option to that Apple will refuse to add such capability in later versions?
Apple use add basic things in about version 10 or 11, so I can give them the benefit of the doubt in one sense.
It's very easy and actually effortless to formulate an opinion based upon incomplete information. How easy we forget some of the very same comments were offered up in the early days of discussion for auto exposure, auto focus, DSLR cameras ... and even Lightroom. None of which were really as productive, reliable or universally accepted as they are today.
To miss out such a standard thing as star ratings at this stage is very, very different to early stages of completely new ideas. So your analogy is not exactly valid.
-
So ... I take it you are extremely bored today ... ;)
No. But I take it you have no rebuttal to my points though.
-
It always makes me laugh when people worry about Apple's profitability and guess about reasons why they do things. Apple does not need to make a profit on each part because they own the whole.
Comparing version 4 to version 8 is a wild comparison. Lightroom early versions were pretty bad too. Photoshop and Lightroom have completely different purposes.
Yes Lightroom is a viable option for Aperture users (if they need to migrate), it's just not mine.
1. I never expressed worry about Apple's profitability. 2. A guess or opinion is what drives conversations on these these boards. 3. Apple's OS and the free apps are part of the whole. Aperture is a separate software program and Apple has decided that supporting this program is no longer worth the resources. A common occurrence in the software world. 4. I never compared of C1 V4 to V8, I only stated that I moved away from C1 after V4 because it became very buggy (an opinion shared by many). LR like all successful programs continually improves, as did Aperture. LR and PS have different purposes; however, I state it is an option because you can do everything in PS that you can do in LR. Camera Raw is the engine that drives both PS and LR, the programs just give you a different UI.
-
So your analogy is not exactly valid.
Wasn't aware you were appointed to deem what is valid ...
My observations and opinions are no more or less valid than your own ...
-
No. But I take it you have no rebuttal to my points though.
I don't feel compelled to rebut your points ... after all, who am I to question such a superior intellect? ::)
-
I don't feel compelled to rebut your points ... after all, who am I to question such a superior intellect? ::)
Patronising behaviour like this and in prior posts above only makes you look ignorant and avoiding answering questions with that sort of attitude tends to indicate you simply have no answer at all.
-
Patronising behaviour like this and in prior posts above only makes you look ignorant and avoiding answering questions with that sort of attitude tends to indicate you simply have no answer at all.
Possibly ... I may be ignorant when it comes to the historical prospect of dance as it applies to human behavior ... or growing weary wait5ing for Apple to offer basic features 10-11 versions out ... though, since you seem to have all the answers ... we seem to be covered ;D
I'll just allow you to proclaim your superiority while I cower in the corner in shame ... Oh if I were only worthy to share the same planet with such greatness ....
-
Possibly ... I may be ignorant when it comes to the historical prospect of dance as it applies to human behavior ... or growing weary wait5ing for Apple to offer basic features 10-11 versions out ... though, since you seem to have all the answers ... we seem to be covered ;D
I'll just allow you to proclaim your superiority while I cower in the corner in shame ... Oh if I were only worthy to share the same planet with such greatness ....
Sticking with being a tosser rather than debating politely I see.
-
Sticking with being a tosser rather than debating politely I see.
I don't really see the need to debate. If you are seeking competition to fulfill some sense of accomplishment, you picked the wrong bear to poke. Because in the end, I don't really care what you think or if others may perceive someone has won the argument. I can think for myself. I've been self employed in the field of photography for over 40 years now. Debating on the internet is not going to enhance my life or my livelihood ...
I use both Aperture and Lightroom. I have been using Lightroom since the first day the very first public beta for v1 was offered .... I later adopted Aperture when the price was reduced to utilize it to fulfill my workflow for books/albums and multi-media slideshows I produced for my clients. I soon discovered it was not the totally inferior product so many would have had me believe it was. In the areas of books and slideshows, Aperture offered (and still does) quite superior capabilities over Lightroom. While I am disappointed Apple has dropped development of Aperture, I don't have an issue with using Lightroom as my primary option ... since I now can rely on other software and have adjusted my products and services for the current millennium and the evolving desires of my clients.
The market for printed books/albums has tapered off and I am now doing much more video production. I have gone to offering more options for multi-media montages and less printed tomes. I now use Final Cut Pro X much more to complete my daily tasks.
It is primarily my experience with FCP X and how it has evolved from a less than appealing introduction into a very formidable, streamlined, user friendly and widely capable tool ... I am willing to give Apple and the prospect of the Photos app (with a keen eye on the foundation of extensibility) some time to see if this new concept can offer potential ... even for advanced users.
Somehow, mentioning that I am willing to reserve judgement until an actual product is released and actually put the released version through the paces in real world use is an offensive concept to some. It seems as though some folks feel compelled to point out that the world as we know it will suffer unless I come to my senses and accept an opinion of the status quo which is based upon incomplete information and conjecture.
There really is nothing to debate. Comparisons to dance, human behavior over centuries and personal animus toward certain developers does not move the discussion forward. It just becomes a game on the internet to drive popcorn sales.
I am waiting until I actually use the Photos app for OS X before I make any decisions as to it's worth. Just as I have always done with any software I now use and rely upon to perform my daily tasks. Which I am sure saddens some.
Of course you are free to pick as many nits as you wish so as to demonstrate your sense of superiority on the matter in an effort to win a contest you seem so keen on perpetuating.
-
You seem to be arguing generally against everyone on the thread who has a different opinion to yourself and aiming all that at me.
If you have no interest in debate or what others think, do not understand analogy and prefer to be insulting rather than conversational why bother cluttering up the forum?
-
You seem to be arguing generally against everyone on the thread who has a different opinion to yourself and aiming all that at me.
If you have no interest in debate or what others think, do not understand analogy and prefer to be insulting rather than conversational why bother cluttering up the forum?
Aiming at you? Surely it's a bit late in the day to adopt the "woe is me" defense.
I'm not arguing with anyone. In the end, I may come to the same conclusion as you and everyone involved. What you may desire to evaluate is, why does it bother you so, that I choose to reserve my conclusion until I can fully evaluate a delivered product? Why do you feel compelled to extend the debate now ... before all the facts are actually revealed?
I would think anyone who uses the tag line "Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless." would support thinking outside the box and not accepting the status quo, sight unseen.
-
Assumption must be your stock in trade. Not playing any 'woe is me card', I was simply describing your post and I certainly am not accepting any status quo sight unseen. I can make my own mind up thank you.
However thinking something as simplistic as Photos has been revealed to be so far will morph into a pro caliber piece of software is simply naive. They are a phone company now and have been for many years. Apple as the provider of kit for graphics professionals is a bit last century. Not to mention that anyone contemplating using any Apple software as an essential part of their business is a bit of an idiot in my view. Ever heard the expression - "Past performance is the best predictor of future behavior" ? Apple will drop any product at any time if it suits their bottom line, no matter the harm to long term users of said product. I avoid the use of anything Apple wherever I can for that very reason, the alternatives are usually better anyway. The only thing I cannot avoid is the extremely clunky iTunes as everything else is dependent on it.
MS for all their faults at least understand that businesses need support for legacy products and do not just cater to this year's fashion or force people to upgrade via a computer that is fractionally smaller because all the insides are now literally outside the box.
It's getting time to replace my desk+laptop and am now seriously wondering about switching to Windows.
-
...understand that businesses need support for legacy products and do not just cater to this year's fashion or force people to upgrade via a computer that is fractionally smaller because all the insides are now literally outside the box.
Not wanting to get in between you and Butch, but I find you comment interesting. I liked MS for its support of software, which prevented users from needing to update software. However, in 2007, my opinion changed and I moved to Apple. IMO, MS support of legacy software required the creation of a bloated OS that hampered performance and continued to created security risks. I like that Apple keeps its OS clean and doesn't try to be everything to everybody. Personally, I keep my software updated, but understand that others might not be able to afford this policy.
What does bother me is Apple not working with Wacom (per the Wacom rep) to make its OS usable on the Wacom Companion or Cintiq. But that just me being me.
-
Assumption must be your stock in trade. Not playing any 'woe is me card', I was simply describing your post and I certainly am not accepting any status quo sight unseen. I can make my own mind up thank you.
However thinking something as simplistic as Photos has been revealed to be so far will morph into a pro caliber piece of software is simply naive. They are a phone company now and have been for many years. Apple as the provider of kit for graphics professionals is a bit last century. Not to mention that anyone contemplating using any Apple software as an essential part of their business is a bit of an idiot in my view. Ever heard the expression - "Past performance is the best predictor of future behavior" ? Apple will drop any product at any time if it suits their bottom line, no matter the harm to long term users of said product. I avoid the use of anything Apple wherever I can for that very reason, the alternatives are usually better anyway. The only thing I cannot avoid is the extremely clunky iTunes as everything else is dependent on it.
MS for all their faults at least understand that businesses need support for legacy products and do not just cater to this year's fashion or force people to upgrade via a computer that is fractionally smaller because all the insides are now literally outside the box.
It's getting time to replace my desk+laptop and am now seriously wondering about switching to Windows.
So it took this long to reveal, your real purpose for participating in this thread was to facilitate a rant on Apple?
1. How is it that you are carefully crafting the implementation of the thesis of "Past performance is the best predictor of future behavior" only applies itself in a negative fashion? Because I could go into great detail of negative aspects of most any hardware maker and software developer that exists today. None of them are without sin. Even after I offered an example of the success FCP X has achieved? Although many dubbed it iMovie+ when it was introduced ... (Not saying that attitude was not warranted) But things change ... as did FCP X. When FCP X v1 was released, I too, was not impressed. Fortunately, I was patient and rewarded for not entering into panic mode.
2. Yes, Apple has had great success with smartphones, tablets and digital music players ... in fact they created a whole multi-billion dollar cottage industry in that sector for apps and accessories. Shame on them for sure. But ... how do you explain the growth in unit sales for desktop and laptop computers every quarter for the past 4-6 years while the rest of the industry is losing ground at a steady pace? You may not like the new Mac Pro because it is no longer offered in a "traditional" form factor, however, Apple can just barely keep up with demand for the new model. Things change and evolve. Humans naturally resist change. I, for one, am very glad I didn't panic when Apple dropped support for floppy drives, SCSI interfaces, optical drives and such ... I realized quite quickly, they were right on each and every step. With little inconvenience, the marketplace evolved to offer more efficient options. I don't share your sentiment in light of the facts. I don't like the reality they dropped the ball on Aperture either. But life goes on.
3. I am very aware that the Photos app will likely never be a "professional" solution ... but it could be the hub for a personally tailored workflow that could use custom extended parts that make my tasks easier. Not saying it's going to happen ... just saying, I'm willing to wait and see what happens because the concept is intriguing, albeit untraditional. It costs me nothing to observe it's progress and make a determination later. Nor should it be worrisome or disconcerting to others that I choose to wait and see what transpires.
Additionally - I don't have an opinion on MS in general or Windows specifically ... never owned anything they offered except an upgrade to Expressions Media because they bought out iView Media Pro and let it languish in obscurity for years. On this issue I am agnostic. If you choose to venture forth, it matters not to anyone but yourself. Good fortune.
-
Lots of spirited dialog here ;)
I think, when it comes down to it, Photos is the best application for about 98% of photographers. If you store photos in iCloud, then everything you have is synced across all your Apple devices, immediately, and everything is backed up. And the editing tools are fairly good -- if you consider the magic wand "great." It actually does a fantastic job like 90% of the time. Sharing photos and albums is finally easy, and sensible.
So Photos is really, really great for how the vast majority of people take and use photos.
For professional photographers, however, it's lacking. No local adjustments, inferior sharpening tools, and it's a huge regression in organization over Aperture. If you're a professional, Photos is no Aperture substitute.
-
If you're a professional, Photos is no Aperture substitute.
Agreed. That point was never in dispute as far as I am concerned. Though, it is far to easy to proclaim that Photos is lacking as it exists ... especially when it is only available in a very early beta form and has only been used by a very limited group. I would seriously doubt any first version beta from any developer could replace Aperture.
My point of thinking outside the box is two-fold, based upon what was offered and discussed at the 2014 WWDC. 1. Don't ever expect Photos to replace Aperture because that is not what it is designed to do. 2. It is the extensibility of Photos that is the new concept that must be proven and has great potential.
Think about it. If Photos was actually thought to be a replacement for iPhoto and/or Aperture ... Why would Apple first present it to a developer conference and not end users? Maybe they did this because they wish to pursue a pathway for third parties to pick up the mantle and extend the capabilities of Photos for the end user ... tailored to each end user's desires and requirements.
If this was not the intent, why did't Apple wait to show off the app at another time? Why did they first show it to folks who crunch code and not the end users? If the intent was not to offer extensibility, why bother showing the app to developers at all? Apple only makes money from developers if there is pathway for the developers to offer users a solution.
It is this extensibility I find intriguing. What if you could move seamlessly (or near seamlessly) in a parametric style from selecting an image in the Photos Library to further processing and working with the image in Nik/Google, onOne, Topaz, Pixelmator, Affinity Photo, Acorn 4 ... or even Ps. The offerings already have many of the missing features in Photos for local adjustments, sharpening, etc. As for lacking in organization features, that will come. Even novice longtime iPhoto users/iPhoneographers won't stay quiet long if Apple doesn't beef up this area. What good is it to have all your images on all your devices if you can't quickly find the specific image you are seeking? I don't think Apple is going to miss that point.
All I am saying, I'm willing to keep an open mind and see if Apple can actually pull it off. I'm not going to bet the farm on the prospect or stick with Aperture past the point of no return. It is possible this concept may come to fruition and still not be up to par for professional use. But to proclaim the concept as dead in the water before it has even seen the light of day is a bit premature ... even for so many professionally minded folk.
-
I guess you get to have 3800 posts by analysing and quoting every phase of everyone else's post. Shame about the question.
-
Coming back to the original question, I'd say the answer is "no".
I've experimented with a mix of applications: on the DAM side, PhaseOne Media Pro, which anyway I've been using for a decade and a half, and IDImager Photo Supreme. And on the processing side, Iridient Developer - which again I'm pretty familiar with - and Capture One, which I last used seriously a v3.8 before moving first to Iridient, then Lr 1.0, then Ap 2.0.
I like Photo Supreme a lot. It is the only DAM which seems to have realised that we're not in the late 90s any more. It has support for versions (and quite advanced too), it has a very novel and powerful interface, although it has a steep learning curve. It imports Aperture libraries quite smoothly. But it is a little sluggish compared to MediaPro, and the UI is a bit graceless (nowhere near as ugly as Lr though...). Photo Supreme also attempts, quite successfully, to apply edits from some RAW converters to it's previews. But it lacks the automation of MediaPro (auto updates etc).
On the RAW side, Iridient is just fabulous. However, it does lack any kind of healing / retouching / local adjustment feature, so basically it's a front end to Photoshop. CaptureOne 8 does have a rich feature set, although some of those features are surprisingly weak (no Luminance mode for curves ? In 2015??). But C1's Library tools, basically a clone of a subset of MediaPro, are much, much better than in v7. I've successfully imported a 50'000 photo Aperture library, and C1's attempt at match a subset of Aperture's corrections is pretty successful. The GUI can be heavily customised, and with some work can approximate Aperture. Of course, I'm actually very familiar with MediaPro, so I'm actually happy enough with much of it as it is.
The interaction between MediaPro and CaptureOne is more conceptual than factual, but there are some very useful workflows involving both applications, for example large scale key wording in MediaPro, and initial sort/editing before exporting a Catalog to C1. It's a new way of working, it's poorly documented by PhaseOne, but it is worth exploring, imho. MediaPro can also handle a wider range of file types (e.g PSD!)
So basically I've ended up with a system where my "hub" is MediaPro, both for digital and film scan work, my primary workflow is through CaptureOne, but often cross-checking with Iridient, or using Iridient when I need more flexibility. PhotoSupreme could replace MediaPro, and from a feature point of view is better, but switching between it's metaphors and PhaseOne's is just too much trouble.
It's not Aperture, but then again it's also not a one-stop, lock-in shop where you're at risk of having years of work junked on the whim of some suit in Silicon Valley.
Is my approach better than Lr ? Well for me, yes. Clearly when it gets down to ultimate results, the differences between all these applications are trivial to 99% of the potential audience. But to me, Lr still looks like a cobbled together mess of various unsynchronised experiments that was rushed out, supported by a massive, and massively successful marketing campaign, playing to various "star" photographers egos, in reaction to the shock release of Aperture 1.0. Unfortunately, Adobe never saw any reason to do a proper job of things once they'd grabbed the market. Which makes perfect bean counter sense.
But "inevitable" ? No. Valid? Certainly. Probably even very sensible.
-
I guess you get to have 3800 posts by analysing and quoting every phase of everyone else's post. Shame about the question.
If you weren't so busy being snarky and a smart arse, you'd probably realise I got to that no. of posts by simply being part of this forum for a long time. I don't think my average of 1.2 posts a day is anywhere near many other regular members here.
By the way quoting posts you answering makes for a much easier read. I had to go back to previous pages to see that it was me you were insulting, because you didn't bother to give your post any context.
-
So it took this long to reveal, your real purpose for participating in this thread was to facilitate a rant on Apple?
More ignorant and inaccurate assumptions.
-
Not wanting to get in between you and Butch, but I find you comment interesting. I liked MS for its support of software, which prevented users from needing to update software. However, in 2007, my opinion changed and I moved to Apple. IMO, MS support of legacy software required the creation of a bloated OS that hampered performance and continued to created security risks. I like that Apple keeps its OS clean and doesn't try to be everything to everybody. Personally, I keep my software updated, but understand that others might not be able to afford this policy.
What does bother me is Apple not working with Wacom (per the Wacom rep) to make its OS usable on the Wacom Companion or Cintiq. But that just me being me.
The biggest reason why MS has big problem with security compared to Apple is mostly down to the fact that Apple was such a small part of the desktop market so it was...
1. less worthwhile attacking
2. much harder for viruses to spread as there were so few 'carriers'.
Apple are a premium brand. One not affordable by most people or indeed many companies in the world.
As for Wacom, Apple do their own thing and other companies simply have to put up with it.
-
So why did Apple drop Aperture? ... Aperture was never going to be profitable.
Because it is not cross-Apple platform.
-
Because it is not cross-Apple platform.
No one outside of Apple really knows. But I doubt that was the reason. I suspect that the market is just too small for Apple.
What would you do if you see a rapidly shrinking market? Would you put more money into it?
It was estimated that Apple sold about a million Apple Watch last Friday. In comparison, worldwide interchangeable lens digital camera sales for the entire month of Dec 2014 was only about 950 thousand.