Hmm... Try this (Apple Photos)

[peterwgallagher]

Take one of your 'difficult' shots -- almost overexposed or wide dynamic range -- that you've processed carefully in LR or PS with probably a ton  of local adjustments. Import the raw file into Apple Photos for Mac OS (ok... not for anyone on Windows or Linux).

Now: start to "Edit" the image. Crop (top of the window frame) if you want. Then (first) set the WB using the color sampler. For all the other global adjustments  (except Sharpening, I suggest) press the "Auto" button. Maybe fiddle with the exposure/brightness.

Now you're "Done". Are you surprised?

Export the image to JPEG. Then export your LR-processed image to JPEG. Make the comparison.

Wouldn't it be good to have some local adjustments in Photos? Well... Do you own e.g. Affinity Photo. Or Luminar? Take a look at that tool-bar button with the three dots.

[I did this this afternoon. Pretty soon I went back to LR, 'reset' everything on those images and started again. Eventually got results similar to those that Photos showed me.]

Best to all,

Peter

[Aram Hăvărneanu]

I don't understand what am I supposed to see.

[adias]

Take one of your 'difficult' shots -- almost overexposed or wide dynamic range -- that you've processed carefully in LR or PS with probably a ton  of local adjustments. Import the raw file into Apple Photos for Mac OS (ok... not for anyone on Windows or Linux).

Now: start to "Edit" the image. Crop (top of the window frame) if you want. Then (first) set the WB using the color sampler. For all the other global adjustments  (except Sharpening, I suggest) press the "Auto" button. Maybe fiddle with the exposure/brightness.

Now you're "Done". Are you surprised?

Export the image to JPEG. Then export your LR-processed image to JPEG. Make the comparison.

Wouldn't it be good to have some local adjustments in Photos? Well... Do you own e.g. Affinity Photo. Or Luminar? Take a look at that tool-bar button with the three dots.

[I did this this afternoon. Pretty soon I went back to LR, 'reset' everything on those images and started again. Eventually got results similar to those that Photos showed me.]

Best to all,

Peter

I hear you! People often overlook other tools and Photos is quite good.

[mbaginy]

Apple Photos has become quite powerful and paired with software such as Luminar, very good indeed.  I've used both, simply to see what they can do and was pleasantly surprised.  No virtual copies though and printing isn't as elegant.

If I were a beginning amateur today, I wouldn't go the route of LR and PS, I might stick with Photos and Luminar or opt for PS-Elements.  In any case, I'd stay away from a subscription model, but who thought of such an evolution in the early days of LR?  Since I've now processed over 50k images with LR, a change of software is out of the question - I'm stuck with Adobe (for better or worse).

[peterwgallagher]

I continue to use Photos once in a while. It still compares well, in my view with any of the raw processors on the Mac -- including ACR/LR -- with 'auto' settings that are really very good.

I typically process photos first in DXO "Optics Pro for Photos" (the App Store, about $10, I think) which offers lens corrections, noise reduction and 'dehaze', then use several of the settings in the Photos "Adjust" panels (WB, light, curves, definition, color). The whole process takes about a minute with more than acceptable results. I rarely feel the need for local adjustments on-top. But if I do then I tend to use Luminar 3 that has a Photos-plugin or Raw Power which has fine controls. If local adjustments are needed (eg. to remove lens/sensor smudges) I use the "Pixelmator Retouch" plugin for photos (comes with Pixelmator).

I agree with you, however, that printing is too primitive to use in Photos. Apple is interested only in selling you a print-on-demand service. I have, however, exported full-size TIFFs to LR using an "auto import" folder: LR imports whatever is there into its catalog with configurable name-settings etc (see the LR Classic "File" menu). The advantages of LR printing are the use of ICC profiles for your paper, LR export-for-print sharpening etc.

What puzzles me still about the Photos environment is the nature of the data that is passed between photos and the "plug-ins". Photos itself is a 'non-destructive' editor (with full restoration of the raw image available at any time from the Photos database). But I am not sure what the plugins are working on. I think most are also working in a non-destructive fashion but I find it difficult to believe that e.g. DXO Optics Pro for Photos applies its "Prime" noise reduction non-destructively. Still, I can't find any evidence of full-size duplicate versions in the .photolibrary folder. There are 'masters' (the original raws) and there are XMP files in an 'Attachments' folder. All the other data seems to be database-related including a number of JPEG copies of the images.

Here are a couple of images (before & after) that I processed in about 40 seconds using Photos and the DXO Optics Pro plugin (including lens corrections for my OLY 7-14mm , 'smart lighting' and 'Prime' noise reduction). Not a brilliant photo but the processing rescued one where the dynamic range of the raw was much greater than it appeared.

Best, P

[bwana]

It would be optimal if Apple Photos wrote changes to an XMP file that LR?PS could read

[BobShaw]

The big negative of Photos is the lack of Star ratings. That is a show stopper for me. If it had that then I may consider migrating from Aperture.

[Chairman Bill]

I've been looking around at alternatives to upgrading to Capture One Pro 12 and been quite impressed with DxO PhotoLab 2 but the thought of its lens corrections via an app, with Photos and my old Nik Suite instead, sounds a cheaper and possibly as good an option.

[mbaginy]

The big negative of Photos is the lack of Star ratings. That is a show stopper for me. If it had that then I may consider migrating from Aperture.

Bob, couldn't you give selected images a keyword of 5-star or something similar?

[Chairman Bill]

*****

[mbaginy]

*****

Yes, that's truly simple enough, as long as those special characters don't cause problems as image metadata somewhere along the line.  Possibly with some unix servers in the cloud or somewhere?  I'm not sufficiently computer savvy, but learned (ages ago) to adhere to certain rules: 32 characters max with file names, no special characters, etc.

[peterwgallagher]

Mike,

All EXIF/IPTC readers I've come across seem to treat keywords as just delimited text. 32-bit readers shouldn't have any problems reading any ASCII or UTF-8 characters you use in the keyword. I'm not sure, but I'm guessing you can use an infeasibly large number of characters in each 'keyword' too.

Then if you use e.g. 4*, 5*, 1* etc you can make a "smart album" in Photos that will collect all your photos by star attribute (and possibly by other attributes too: 4* + "printed" etc).

It's still, however, a bit of a kludge compared to the ability of LR and other editors to display the stars in the library grid.

Photos' management of the image database is far-too-specialised. It's evidently intended for thousands of iPhone photos of your cats, family holidays etc. Not for photographers interested in the art of photography. More than anything else, that is what keeps me from making regular use of it.

Peter

[mbaginy]

All EXIF/IPTC readers I've come across seem to treat keywords as just delimited text. 32-bit readers shouldn't have any problems reading any ASCII or UTF-8 characters you use in the keyword. I'm not sure, but I'm guessing you can use an infeasibly large number of characters in each 'keyword' too.

Yeah, I guess my fears were connected to file names decades ago.  Sometimes writing in German and Polish, these needed some roundabout spelling to not use "special" characters. I guess metadata never did have an affect on unix file handling. I admit that I quit adhering to my original rules some years ago since that limited my spelling in non-English languages.

[luxborealis]

Peter is correct about Apple Photos. It is far more powerful than many realize, and is even more powerful when you open up the various palettes along the side. It is exceptionally good at ‘reading’ images and making appropriate ‘corrections’ using Auto.

I’m not a fan of push-button processing as there is no learning in it. Unless the user takes the time to deconstruct what Auto is doing, one is a forever at the mercy of an inanimate object making what amounts to ‘artistic’ decisions. However, Auto can be useful for seeing what’s possible.

Sadly, Photos does not allow bulk editing, nor, I believe, bulk keywording. Similar to LR, I find the sliders work for gross adjustments, but not for fine adjustments, which is why, with LR I often use the cursor and shift-cursor keys to make more precise and repeatable adjustments, although sadly, not with LR Mobile - repeatable precision is almost impossible given the jumpiness of the sliders, even with the Apple Pencil.

[BobShaw]

Bob, couldn't you give selected images a keyword of 5-star or something similar?

If you change a photo in Aperture from say a 3 star to a 4 star then you just press 4.
If you want to change a keyword in Photos then you have to delete the current keyword and add a new keyword.
A pretty messy solution for my workflow. I start with all photos at Zero and cull them by increasing the star rating as I edit.