Photos an Aperture replacement?

[CatOne]

RAW conversion is a system level function and it should be the same between Photos and Aperture.

Richard

RAW conversion is indeed a system level function. However, some of the new stuff (i.e. the improved noise reduction) is not exposed in Aperture 3.6. It has the old noise conversion. Photos.app will probably use the new stuff.

[ButchM]

Or they will offer such a pathway. Photos isn't it.

Photos is exactly the pathway (or foundation) via extensibility. The primary intriguing aspect of Photos isn't it's capability as a single application, it is in how it can relate to other image software options.

If developers can have access to your RAW images via extensions ... allowing the user to employ Photos as the hub of a non-destructive workflow, it could open up nearly infinite possibilities.

Think of it as utilizing a traditional plugin that can get the job done in parametric manner without the creation of an interim tiff/psd file. A more seamless "Edit in" function if you will that isn't limited to a few options, but to all third party developers that desire to venture forth.

[David Mantripp]

That only works if your hub -Photos- is able to recognize the non-destructive edits applied by a third party plug-in. Seems pretty far-fetched to me. At best there might be common standard for an embedded preview, but how would a process which depended on a sequence of third party plug-ins work? I'm not saying it is impossible, but it would be a very hard nut to crack, and I cannot see any commercial motivation for Apple to crack it. Or indeed much sign that their dev teams even have that level of ability, these days.

[ButchM]

That only works if your hub -Photos- is able to recognize the non-destructive edits applied by a third party plug-in. Seems pretty far-fetched to me. At best there might be common standard for an embedded preview, but how would a process which depended on a sequence of third party plug-ins work? I'm not saying it is impossible, but it would be a very hard nut to crack, and I cannot see any commercial motivation for Apple to crack it. Or indeed much sign that their dev teams even have that level of ability, these days.

Thats the marvel of it all ... a new paradigm. I don't profess to know how it works ... nor do I really care how it works. I am only sharing what has been discussed since the announcement of the OS X version of the Photos app at 2014 WWDC ...

The motivation and ability is already there because that is how it works now in iOS ... you can capture or import a photo and perform adjustments in Photos, as well as roundtrip from there to any other app that offers extension functionality ... all the while, your original image remains intact. Not to mention, Apple is garnering significant earnings from developers who sell their offerings on the App Store ... that is plenty of motivation for all concerned.

This is all early days. A concept still in development. Although it is still a very exciting and intriguing concept. I for one hope they are successful in the implementation.

[David Mantripp]

Forgive if I'm mistaken, because I don't use iOS 8, but surely there the edits are on JPGs, and the "plug-in" delivers back a new version ?  To work in a RAW pipeline, you'd need to provide various registration points for plug-ins, for example MegaDemosaicerPro could register itself as a RAW renderer, MaxVividityPlus as a colour editor and CuttingEdgeX as an output sharpener.  And you'd need to assemble your own pipeline for each photo.

Maybe I'm not Thinking Different enough, but I can't see another way to do it.  And, according to Derrick Storey, who is on record (well, podcast) as saying he got it from Apple directly, Photos, at least for now will NOT actually implement a extendibility scheme.  The marketing intent is to replace iPhoto.

Not that I'm happy about this. I spent an hour or so in Lr5 today, and I don't feel well now :-(     Took me 10 mins to find the straighten tool. What a dog's breakfast of a UI (and I'm not totally new to Lr, I used v1 prior to Ap2).  I cannot imagine why it is so popular. Fabulous marketing, I guess, helped by Apple arrogance.

[KevinA]

I need a black armband. I have run a business based around Aperture since version 1. Apple have now killed off the best dam/editing package to replace it with toy town £ucking junk.
I can't believe a company with Apples resources can't come up with a solution for us pro users that they went out of their way to pitch Aperture at.
Apple make pro computers but don't support their own hardware with the software.

[Hywel]

I'm not going to castigate Photos until it has been released and is clear what capabilities it provides and how good its workflow is. FCP-X was roundly slammed in its initial releases but we now use it for 100% of our editing.

Personally I don't use Aperture's DAM features. I use it as a RAW processor for Canon/Panasonic images and a retoucher for Hasselblad images (which I've done RAW processing on in Phocus already).

So if Photos gets local adjustments, healing brush, local skin smoothing, curves and the ability to run Portraiture or similar skin-smoothing plug in, and its UI doesn't suck, hopefully it will do the job for me. Probably not on launch day, but maybe after a few maintenance releases. That's the Apple way- at least FCP-X proved that they listen to the pro market and do implement important missing features, and provide all those version updates free.

I personally loathe LR's user interface. I suppose I'll check it out again if I really have to. I'd like to use C1, but it is a pain it won't work with Hasselblad RAW files, and its clone/healing tools weren't as powerful or as easy to use as Apeture's last time I looked.

Most likely I'm just going to freeze our current production set-up: two MacPros, three MacBookPros, Mac Mini as a data server. Yosemite seems to be riddled with bugs, so I'm still on Mavericks. Maybe I'll just keep the whole shebang running with no further updates until something catastrophically breaks, or I need updates to handle new cameras. At which point I'll look again at the Mac vs. PC vs. Linux and LR/C1/whatever choice.

At least Apple have learned from the FCP-X debacle and given us plenty of warning that Aperture is EOL, rather than just removing FCP7 overnight!

Cheers, Hywel

[Bob Rockefeller]

C1 is like Lightroom in that its development tools are better than Aperture's but its DAM tools are far worse.

[Tinstafl]

I just reread this and it is pretty simple, I will be not going to the new program and will not use aperture and now my next PC does not have to be a Mac.  I am ok with this even though I do not like it much.  I am picking up LR and I find I am using CC Photoshop more then I was.  So, the out put is the same but it takes more steps.  I guess, we all get to vote with our dollars and since Apple is now just a iPhone company we all might be better off on different platforms next upgrade.  I think that the iPhone sales could be impacted as well as there is no need for an iPhone then as the computers will not be as intertwined. 

I am on a couple other forums as well and the upshot is that many seem to think as I just said and the cost of a strong PC based desktop is cheaper then the apple version across the board. 

[Bob Rockefeller]

I just reread this and it is pretty simple, I will be not going to the new program and will not use aperture and now my next PC does not have to be a Mac.

Don't cut your nose off to spite your face! There are plenty of other things about a Mac that are better than a PC. If you like Lightroom well enough, it runs fine on Mac.

[ButchM]

... the cost of a strong PC based desktop is cheaper then the apple version across the board. 

I, too was extremely disappointed and upset with the realization that Aperture will see it's end much sooner than we all had hoped.

While it is true that purely considering the price of entry only, Windows based hardware can be found for less money than the average Apple counterpart. Though, I would think the number of Apple users who came to, and stuck with Apple hardware solely to use Aperture, would be a very small subset of the total user base ... otherwise, I think Apple would have had much more incentive to maintain support and development.

As Bob points out, many Apple users have looked beyond Aperture when considering choosing the platform. Considering the useful life expectancy and the much higher resale value of Apple hardware as compared to the rest of the industry, there are many other points to consider before making the jump.

For we photographers ... if low bid was our primary concern ... would we have so much invested in all those spiffy and expensive Nikon and Canon products?

[Bob Rockefeller]

While it is true that purely considering the price of entry only, Windows based hardware can be found for less money than the average Apple counterpart.

I'm not even sure how true that is. I haven't done it for a while, but the last time I went to Dell's website and configured a couple of their machines to match the specs on a couple of Apple's, there wasn't that much difference. Maybe Apple was 10% high. I'll pay that for what I get.

[ButchM]

I'm not even sure how true that is. I haven't done it for a while, but the last time I went to Dell's website and configured a couple of their machines to match the specs on a couple of Apple's, there wasn't that much difference. Maybe Apple was 10% high. I'll pay that for what I get.

Well there are also other additional tradeoffs ... building a custom work station will also not have a stylish case designed by Jony Ive either ... 

If you are a shrewd shopper ... you can often gather the components to build a Windows based machine that can offer equal to slightly better performance for much less cost ... if you build it yourself of course. As soon as you mention a custom build by a vendor like Dell, then most often, the price difference is marginal.

I have never built a system from scratch, but it is what my brother-in-law does for a living. He always enlightens me on how much money he could save me ... I just smile and go back to work ...  I don't do Windows. Both figuratively and literally ...

[Jeremy Roussak]

If you are a shrewd shopper ... you can often gather the components to build a Windows based machine that can offer equal to slightly better performance for much less cost ... if you build it yourself of course.

Perhaps; but how much is your time worth?

Jeremy

[ButchM]

Perhaps; but how much is your time worth?

Jeremy

Couldn't agree more ... just sharing what the folks in that camp have said in the past.

[digitaldog]

I'm not even sure how true that is.

Even if true, I don't care. The OS (which has been free for awhile) is a big factor for me. I use both, but one 5% of the time because I prefer the other. If that cost me a bit more money, so be it.

[trichardlin]

Perhaps; but how much is your time worth?

Jeremy

That question has already been answered by the people who think building a PC is cheaper: they think their own time and effort have no value.  

[ppmax2]

Interesting developments from the new El Capitan page at apple.com:

New editing extensions let you go further with your photos.
OS X El Capitan supports third-party tools that will be available from the Mac App Store and accessible right in the Photos app. Use multiple editing extensions from your favorite developers on a single photo, or use a mix of extensions and the editing tools built into Photos. From adding subtle filters to using beautiful texture effects, you can take your photo editing to a whole new level.

Fingers crossed for local adjustments/brushes...

PP

[glocke12]

Interesting developments from the new El Capitan page at apple.com:

Fingers crossed for local adjustments/brushes...

PP

meh...

don't care.  I'll never go back to depending on Apple for ANY type of software for stuff I care about long term.  Killing off Aperture and expecting pro users and "advanced hobbyists" to embrace a piece of software meant for pre-teens and bored housewives has shown me that the company is not dependable enough in the long term.