1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

Apple's Photos for O SX is out. Comments to follow.

Discussion in 'Image Processing' started by dornblaser, Apr 9, 2015.

  1. dornblaser

    dornblaser Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 13, 2012
    Chicago-area
    David Dornblaser
    Apple's Photos for O SX is out. I have downloaded Photos and it is importing a 140GB library that I share with my wife. Sharing should be easier now. I have LR (and PS) installed on my Mac and I will probably switch over to LR since Aperture is no longer being supported; and, my latest camera is not supported in Aperture. I will let you know what I think of Photos after I have had a chance to use it for a few days.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Lurch

    Lurch Hi, I'm a gear addict

    118
    Apr 21, 2014
    Canberra, Australia
    Jason
    Been using since beta. I'm not blown away. Doesnt seem not much more than iPhoto. Certainly NOT an Aperture replacement.
    Ok for iPhone pics as they sync via iCloud - but thats it.
     
  3. dornblaser

    dornblaser Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 13, 2012
    Chicago-area
    David Dornblaser
    No, it isn't.
     
  4. Lurch

    Lurch Hi, I'm a gear addict

    118
    Apr 21, 2014
    Canberra, Australia
    Jason
    I wish DxO had file management like LR. I'm convinced its RAW converter is better, with without asset management its still not enough.
     
  5. bigboysdad

    bigboysdad Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 25, 2013
    Sydney/ London
    Having had a very brief play, I'd say it's iPhoto plus. To be fair, you can do worthwhile PP to raw files but its not to be confused with LR in any way, LR is way more powerful than this. If you're an Aperture user, stick with it, or if your camera is not supported through os x updates, move to LR. Pretty much exactly as foreshadowed.
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2015
  6. Lcrunyon

    Lcrunyon Mu-43 Top Veteran

    758
    Jun 4, 2014
    Maryland
    Loren
    This is of extreme interest to me. I've been resisting going to Adobe because of the expense and complexity. I don't know what I will eventually end up with for PP, but I figure I would give this new Photos a chance. I'm ok with it being in between iPhoto and Aperture, as I only use iPhoto right now anyways. Also, I understand that by opening up the platform for 3rd party developers, there will eventually be plugins available to customize Photos however needed - which is promising.

    But not porting over any of the file organization (as horrendous as iPhoto's was) does not sound like a very good start...
     
  7. dornblaser

    dornblaser Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 13, 2012
    Chicago-area
    David Dornblaser
    It does port over the file organization, it puts in one big folder that I did not open immediately. When I posted earlier, I deleted that post, I had just started to use Photos.
     
  8. Speedliner

    Speedliner Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 2, 2015
    Southern NJ, USA
    Rob
    Don't suppose it can read DNG files? I use LR now, but it would be nice f my wife's iMac could access photos easily without her needing to learn LR on the Mac.
     
  9. David A

    David A Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 30, 2011
    Brisbane, Australia
    Actually Aperture never supported ANY cameras. All support for RAW files in Aperture and iPhoto, and now in Photos, is done via updates to the actual Mac OS so unless your camera is extremely recent and Apple hasn't included it in a recent OS update for RAW files you should be able to use Aperture with your RAW files. If you can access your RAW files in iPhoto/Photos, you should be able to do so in Aperture as well.

    As for Photos, I installed the Yosemite update yesterday and had a quick look at Photos. I used to use Aperture but swapped to Lightroom a couple of years ago. Photos isn't going to replace either Aperture or Lightroom for anyone. It's an iPhoto replacement only.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. Lcrunyon

    Lcrunyon Mu-43 Top Veteran

    758
    Jun 4, 2014
    Maryland
    Loren
    Thanks for the clarification. I was debating whether I was going to download it.
     
  11. dornblaser

    dornblaser Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 13, 2012
    Chicago-area
    David Dornblaser
    Yes, I know that the OS handles the RAW files. My camera is the EM-5 mk ii.

    For me the benefits of Photos is download the pics from an iPad and to share pics with my wife. I was planning on exporting pictures that I want to work on to a different file system for LR & PS. While Photos is not an Aperture replacement now, I am hoping that like with FCPX that Apples continually adds features until it becomes more robust.
     
  12. dornblaser

    dornblaser Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 13, 2012
    Chicago-area
    David Dornblaser
    It put the them in a file called "iPhoto Events", since I didn't use iPhoto I did not open it. By the way if you do want to try Photos make a copy of your Aperture library for Photos as it will not share a library with Aperture and will disable the library for Aperture.
     
  13. fredlong

    fredlong Just this guy...

    Apr 18, 2011
    Massachusetts USA
    Fred
    Photos will copy your Aperture library as it ports it. There's no need to copy it first.

    Fred
     
  14. dornblaser

    dornblaser Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 13, 2012
    Chicago-area
    David Dornblaser
    OK, I was under the impression that it wouldn't. Thanks for the clarification.
     
  15. Lcrunyon

    Lcrunyon Mu-43 Top Veteran

    758
    Jun 4, 2014
    Maryland
    Loren
    Same here. I have an iPad that I take with me traveling or in the field, and a Mac at home. The seamless transition for my notes and blogs are already a great benefit, so I am hoping to do much the same with my photos.
     
  16. dornblaser

    dornblaser Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 13, 2012
    Chicago-area
    David Dornblaser
    My wife is in London for 10 days with her iPad mini and EM-10. So far she is using Photos as I had hoped. She is uploading, sharing and doing minor edits. Now she is able to compare her current pics to ones that she took in the past because she has all of her pics in the Cloud. That is pretty cool.
     
  17. Angus Gibbins

    Angus Gibbins Mu-43 Regular

    181
    Dec 6, 2015
    Brisbane, Australia
    Angus
    I know this is an old thread, but this is not correct, it doesn't copy it, but you're correct that there is no need to copy before migrating. What it does is create a new Photos library and leave the Aperture library intact, but it creates a hard link between the photos in each library (it basically does this so it can migrate your library without using additional disk space). If you were to open the file in Photoshop or edit it destructively, it then breaks the hard link between the two and creates two files, but otherwise it looks like it's two seperate files in the file system, but under the hood they're the same file.

    I've used iPhoto and Aperture too, I wouldn't say it's an iPhoto replacement. I'd say in terms of capabilities, it sits about in the middle of the two, it's certainly not an Aperture replacement, but it's head and shoulders above iPhoto (and the migration path from iPhoto is fine, the only thing you do lose is Events which get converted to Albums, and star ratings which get converted to Keywords).

    I'm in the position here where I'm happily using Photos, but wondering if I should migrate to Lightroom (especially since I'm taking my photography a bit more seriously than I used to) but at the moment, I just don't see any reason to (happy to be convinced otherwise though).

    Oh also, being able to do quick photo edits on my iPhone/iPad or import them on the go (only quick edits, OS X Photos is still more powerful) and have them sync via iCloud is a bonus as well.
     
  18. David A

    David A Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 30, 2011
    Brisbane, Australia
    I migrated from Aperture to Lightroom about 3 years ago now because Apple wasn't updating Aperture, the writing was starting to look fairly clear on the wall, and I wanted some features which LR had added and Aperture had not. I haven't regretted the move, in fact I'm glad I made it, but there was a learning curve. I'll also say that while LR was a step up from Aperture at the time I migrated, and an even bigger step up now with 2 major version updated in the interim, it isn't perfect. It's also not the only option out there and photo processing applications are beasts which seem to excite strong feelings for and against, whichever one you choose.

    You're in an interesting position now. Back when this thread was started there were no extensions for Photos so you were limited to being able to do what Photos could do on its own. Now there are things like the MacPhun apps which can operate as extensions for Photos and which expand its capabilities so you have the option of staying with Photos and expanding its capabilities with add ons which can function as extensions to Photos or of moving to a different application like Lightroom if you want to do more.

    If you don't see a reason to migrate to something else at the moment then my advice is simple: don't. If all you're going to do in a new application are the same things you're doing now, then the only things you're going to gain are all negative and that's the pain of migration plus having to learn how to get the same results with a different interface and a set of editing controls that's going to be different and is probably going to work slightly differently to the controls you're used to. No gain, some difficulties, and the cost of buying whatever application you choose is not a reason to swap applications in my view, even if the new application is superior and offers more features. If you're going to migrate to something else I think you need to have a reason for doing so. The new application needs to offer you things you can't get in Photos and actually want to use at the time you migrate. If it doesn't do that, if you aren't wanting features that you currently don't have access to and you're happy with your results, stick with what you've got.

    I suspect that you will swap sometime down the track when you start to want to do things with your images that you can't do now but wait 'till that's the case. Photo processing software is an area where different applications offer different features and interfaces and where both features and interface are under regular development. An application which is good today could have fallen behind by the time you have reason to migrate to something else, and an application that is not quite with it today or even something entirely new could be just the thing you're looking for when you reach that point. Make the decision when you need to rather than while you're saying you have no reason to migrate. Simply put, the only reason to migrate is because you have reasons to migrate and then the application to migrate to is the one which best addresses those reasons. Until then, stick with what you've got. Basically, if it ain't broke then don't fix it and what you're saying when you say you don't see a reason to migrate is that for you at present Photos isn't broken. If that's the case you've got nothing to fix at present.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. bigboysdad

    bigboysdad Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 25, 2013
    Sydney/ London
    I think it's whether you shoot raw that may determine if you ever need LR. If you do shoot solely in raw, LR will provide substantially more flexibility in manipulating the image to your desired output. If that's something you require now or in the future, then its something to think about.
     
  20. Angus Gibbins

    Angus Gibbins Mu-43 Regular

    181
    Dec 6, 2015
    Brisbane, Australia
    Angus
    Very good points David, It's one of those things that if I'm going to do it sooner or later, I'd rather do it sooner. But, yeah, Photos is doing the trick at the moment.

    I shoot RAW + JPEG at the moment, and then process the RAW in Photos.