Heads up for Aperture users ...

FlowtographyBerlin

*Sigh*

Now I'm stuck. Capture One Pro 7 (which I have) misses the great retouching tool that Aperture and LR have (retouching skin spots etc.). Lightroom sucks for some reason I don't remember. What was it again?

JJ_SO

It appears, Photos will have retouching tools, if I interprete the "plaster"-icon correctly. How powerful? How versatile?? How useful???

I mean, if it's only another red-eyes desaturating tool, I don't need it.

Also, there are plans to integrate 3rd party plugins. Sounds great. But does mean, a 16bit TIF will be exported, edited by third -party plugin, reimported and if something went wrong, do it again. Additionally, this is for each use of a plugin and additional 200MB (D800 file as 1g bit TIF). Not very sexy.

proudgeek

JJ_SO, you and I seem to be in similar positions with regards to our commitment to the Aperture platform. Everything I've read (and there are some pretty informative forums that you can connect to through the Apple site) says that migration from Aperture to LR as things stand today is not very practical. I'm hoping that Photos is robust enough and offers the same seamless integration with the Nik suite that Aperture currently offers (and truth be told, a lot of the tools that appear to be "lost" in Photos can probably be found in Nik) OR that Adobe creates some kind of library transfer script before Aperture either dies or I buy a new camera.
Does anyone know if the current version of Aperture will support RAW conversion for the D810? Does a camera tweak of that magnitude require a new RAW converter?

JJ_SO

I guess, there will be at least one or two RAW-updates for Apple before Yosemite will ship. This year's Photokina, so many manufacturers will have new models and new RAW formats. In those updates we'll see D810 support.

I'm afraid, D810 will bring a new NEF (that was the reason to ask in the other thread, if somebody already knows a source for those RAWs) At least, RAWs will need another codec.

Maybe we're lucky and they leave the D800 standard RAW as it is, but... I'm not sure if the picture control settings are included in the RAWs. D810 has more picture controls, more custom white balance settings and some other gimmicks for which they need to modify their RAW containment. But I'm speculating.

plugins are not the way I like to go, if they need TIF to work on. I like keeping the RAW as long as possible, I want to have parameters and non-destructive ediiting. We'll see, but LR and Adobe's cloud (as well as other clouds, to be fair) is no option for me.

FlowtographyBerlin

I'd say it is beyond question that this "Photos" app will not be able to cater to the pro community feature-wise. Just look at the list by @Ade. I could imagine many other features, like selective color correction etc. etc.

BTW, @JJ_SO: I did use Aperture professionally. Which is not strange given that you just need one tool for bulk editing (events) and file management. Just like others use LR.

As opposed to you, though, I hate having multiple libraries; I bought C1 a while ago but never switched. If Version 8 (according to release history, it should be released this year) has a healing-brush-like tool, I'm sold.

I just want to know asap what I'll be doing now, because every additional image edited using Aperture from now on means lost work in the future. So the sooner I can switch, the better.

This sucks.

PB_PM

I guess, there will be at least one or two RAW-updates for Apple before Yosemite will ship. This year's Photokina, so many manufacturers will have new models and new RAW formats. In those updates we'll see D810 support.

Keep in mind that Aperture has always used OS based RAW support, rather than it's own application independent system. Therefore, as long as Apple keeps using that system of RAW support, Aperture should still work with newer cameras. That is until you update to an OS that no longer supports Aperture, or if Apple changes the way RAW support is handled, which I doubt.

Apple has already stated that they will release one final Aperture update providing Yosemite support, so for the time being there is no reason to rush into another solution. Personally I'm going to hold onto Aperture and wait and see what Photos brings to the table. If it doesn't do what I want, I'll switch to open source software, mostly likely Darktable.

FlowtographyBerlin

The problem isn't that Aperture stops working instantly, the problem is that you lose all the edits upon migration to another software, and now that we know this migration will definitely happen, there's no point in using Aperture just one day longer than needed.

PB_PM

Until Aperture doesn't work with a future version of OSX, which could be 2 years from now, I don't see a problem with it. If Photos doesn't work out, I'll simply keep using Aperture until it no longer works. When that time comes, I'll simply switch to something else. It's easy enough to dual boot a system, or run a VM, so I don't have a problem for the foreseeable future.

If you don't want to loose your edits, export them at full size, no problem there. Will I start to use my own file system rather than Aperture's DAM? If Photos doesn't work out, yes. Until that time comes I am not going to panic and jump to conclusions.

Now keep in mind, other than RAW edits and shadow and highlight recovery, I do a lot of my work in Nik software, so my workflow may be different than yours.

proudgeek

PB_PM I don't think it's a matter of how long Aperture will work. If that's all that I needed to worry about, I'd be fine. But I think (although I'm not sure as this stretches my technical abilities a bit; probably why I use a Mac) that the way things stand now that when you migrate from Aperture to LR you have two choices:
1. Migrate jpeg or tiff version (losing the RAW versions) into the application, which I assume would hamstring future editing
2. Migrate RAW files directly into LR, losing all the non-destructive edits you've done

From that point of view, I see FlowtographyBerlin's concern. My concern (RAW conversion support for a D810 or a D9300) is more immediate. I hope that by the time I'm forced to make the switch, assuming Photos doesn't work for me and that I move to Yosemite, there will be a way to migrate both RAW files and edited versions to LR. But I'm like you in that I'll use it until I can't. But I am afraid that the longer I wait the more painful the migration will become.

FlowtographyBerlin

If you don't want to loose your edits, export them at full size, no problem there.

You already said your workflow is different, and hence, so are your concerns. Nevertheless, if your above statement was true, why use non-destructive editing in the first place? No problem there? Big problem! Because the whole point of the application is perverted when all you are left with are the edited images.

I guess I will end up exporting the originals and the edited versions. If I figure out how to batch-do this. Oh man, I guess we surely all have better things to do than this converting-a-whole-library stuff.

I'm not using the DAM of Aperture, I have my own folder structure. Thank god.

But I am afraid that the longer I wait the more painful the migration will become.

That's exactly the point!

PB_PM

These days I really only use Aperture because of the DAM system, which has been the app's greatest strength through the 5 years that I've been using it. Managing files manual is something that I find to be a huge waste of time. Loosing that aspect of my workflow is the biggest blow that comes as a result of the demise of Aperture. The editing tools in Aperture are really out of date, which is why I don't use them much anymore. There is no distortion correction, sharpening and noise reduction are useless, so I had to look elsewhere for those things. All of those came through add-on plug-ins. The contrast and saturation controls are so basic they are basically useless, so I use Nik software. In Aperture itself I primarily use RAW fine tuning, shadows and highlight recovery and curves, that's about it.

The real issue to me is that, as things stand today there is nothing I want to switch to, which is why I've clung to Aperture for so long in the first place. I hate LR (yes I've tried the trial versions of each edition), so I don't have much choice, but to stay with Aperture for now. I could start using Darktable, which is okay, but handles colour differently, and I find it to be very LR like, yuck. Thus I want to wait and see what Photos has to offer before doing anything. Do I expect it to replace Aperture as a professional grade tool? Not really. Will it be good enough for my workflow? Only time will tell.

JJ_SO

BTW, @JJ_SO: I did use Aperture professionally. Which is not strange given that you just need one tool for bulk editing (events) and file management. Just like others use LR.

As opposed to you, though, I hate having multiple libraries; I bought C1 a while ago but never switched. If Version 8 (according to release history, it should be released this year) has a healing-brush-like tool, I'm sold.

I just want to know asap what I'll be doing now, because every additional image edited using Aperture from now on means lost work in the future. So the sooner I can switch, the better.

This sucks.

You're not opposed to me: I now have 3 different converters, AA, C1 and Sigma PhotoPro, because RAW support for Foveon sensors is pretty rare. I DO hate having different libs. I'd like to have one tool only and I like to have Apple developing Aperture. It sucks they're giving that up. And the more converters I try, the more I see the genius in AA's lib handling. I thought I find something better - instead I appreciate AA more and more than I did already before.

The lib problem wouldn't decrease for me by switching to LR.

@PB_PM I'm aware RAW updates are for OS, not Aperture only or Photos only. Problem with that is: RAW support is bound to new OS X only. Once you stop updating, you loose the ability to support new cameras. That's not the same with C1. Stop updating OS means also stop updating Apple base apps and a little bit later, say one or two years max. the other apps also stop supporting my old OS. Each time I was ready to make the switch, I found OS X whatever worse. So I start thinking about the complete switch away from Apple, because they do too much things I can't like - I'd love too, but those design decisions, and my iMac just doesn't get younger... anyway, I fully agree to this sentence of yours:

The real issue to me is, as things stand today there is nothing I want to switch to.

That's exactly how I feel and I don't have a solution I like. It's like deciding loosing a leg, an eye or a hand?

I like Aperture's editing tools as outdated* as they are just because they are better arranged, of course, I'm used to them since years. So far I haven't seen a converter I liked the arrangement of the tools better. Although C1 offers some customized menus, their whole structures are so "more effort than necessary". Admittedly, they do have to park some more functions...

*which is why I don't consider AA a professional tool - but I'm no professional photog, so that bit doesn't bother me too much.

PB_PM

@JJ_SO I really like Aperture's editing workflow as well, all the tools work in a logical well thought out manner. I just wish that Apple had improved them, or provided greater flexibility in some areas, primarily the contrast and saturation tools. The addition of curves in Aperture 3 and the flexibility it provides was one of the reason's I didn't switch to LR three years ago, along with my dislike for the UI. None the less the ability to get the look I want from my images is simply beyond the capabilities of Aperture's native tools, thus I moved to using Nik software's plug-ins for adjusting thing like saturation and contrast. For basic use Aperture's tools are great, but as soon as you want more control, you really needed plug-ins or additional editing software. Thankfully I found what I wanted in plug-ins.

DaveyJ

I use Aperture 3 and have been criticizing Apple engineers for the last two years. It was obvious to me that Aperture was no longer part of their development future. Photos which will replace Aperture and iPhoto as i understand will rely HEAVILY on Internet connectivity (ICloud etc.). Apple has been a serious photographer and movie maker's computer. The future of this swictheroo is now impossible to predict. It will for CERTAIN cause APPLE users to need additional software editing. Currently we use i Photo, Aperture, and Final Cut 7 through Final Cut Pro and Final Cut 10. This is not good news, but expected by me.

JK1231

Some additional info...

The guy (pro photog) that runs the ApertureExpert.com web site says he got a call from Apple regarding Aperture's demise and he has several posts that provide some interesting information and perspective, including one about features shown and missing from the published screenshot.

Here's links to what he has said to date. Don't know if I agree with all he has to say, but I think his thoughts about the future of photography and workflow are interesting, if nothing else.

http://www.apertureexpert.com/tips/2014/6/27/aperture-dead-long-live-photos
http://www.apertureexpert.com/tips/2014/6/28/comment-follow-demise-aperture
http://www.apertureexpert.com/tips/2014/6/30/closer-look-photos-adjustments-bar
http://www.apertureexpert.com/tips/2014/7/1/aperture-i-come-not-praise-thee

proudgeek

^^Thank you. I will now come in from the ledge.

dissent

moar -

http://petapixel.com/2014/07/01/apple-representative-confirms-3rd-party-extensibility-robust-editing-features-in-osx-photos-app/

BabaGanoush

"I think most people will gain a lot from having Cloud integration with their photo app and being able to reach their photos from their phone, iPad or mac."

Yes, I am sure I will be thrilled to find myself each day uploading and downloading in the course of editing perhaps thousands of NEF and TIFF files, each of them 30-40 MB in size. I can't imagine how I've managed to limp along until now in Lightroom without being able (or REQUIRED) to do that. I mean, it is so *complicated* to have to plug my iPad into my MacPro to transfer image files. It will be so much simpler and straight-forward to exchange files via the cloud. [/snarc].

JJ_SO

The "in Lightroom" bit makes the post sound a little Aperture bashing. Not necessary, even the hardcore Apple or Aperture fans (these days I do make a difference...) will have difficulties to edit those fat RAWs on iPads between 2nd and 4th generation. And not everybody of them has a huge bandwdith mobile connection, some of us are used to speeds around 1000 MBit/s or less...

Therefore I agree

No, I don't gain a lot of accessing all my photos from everywhere. I do gain a bit from accessing my gallery from every device with internet-conncetion. And there are the photos I want to show...

However, I have an app to rate and tag pictures of Aperture on an iPad, sometimes use it to keyword the pics while travelling. Thinking how long the sync of this app with low res JPGs via USB needs, I don't want to know how slow it would be via WiFi or UMTS. And to be honest, I can imagine more exciting things than tagging pics, after a while I prefer to take a nap.

proudgeek

One of the articles I read from the links above by @ApertureExpert floated the idea that cloud integration is available but not mandatory. This would be huge for those of us with extensive image libraries (mine is currently at 300 gigs and with a D800 it's not getting smaller any time soon). I think the cost of storage, as well as the slowness of having to access images via the web for editing purposes, would make it a non-starter for most. But if there was the option to store images locally (for instance, I use a Drobo system connected via Thunderbolt) that would be huge. The other thing the article above discussed was the more seamless integration of third-party plug-ins, like Nik. If these could be positioned adjacent to Aperture so that files could be edited and the edits stored without having to create new tiff versions, that would also be excellent. As far as the actual editing tools in Aperture, those are mediocre anyway so I would hardly miss them, with the exception of the cloning and brushing tools. Virtually any other light/shadow/saturation adjustments can be better handled using Nik Viveza anyway in my opinion.

JJ_SO

The editing tools in AA, like they are these days, could be better (some of them) or more (perspective change, lens profiles, layers for selective color edit (C1 is very cool there)).

But.

I do all my edits with them and I don't need more.

"Seamless" plugins to me are tools which are not editing destructively. NIK doesn't belong to them and I refuse to handle (and pay the storage costs of) 200MB of 16bit TIF. Plus loosing parametric functionality. I welcome each plugin which works non-destructive, but the NIK tools, although they are great effects, were disappointing for me in this aspect.

henrik1963

@BabaGanoush: Maybe you dont fit in to the category "most people"?

I have been using gmail for a long time now - no problem with the fact that my mail lives in the cloud.
We have a synck funktion with Aperture today via iCloud - its called photostream - works fine too.

I regret the fact that Aperture is going away. But maybe Apple can come up with something that will satisfy most people. That may not be a solution you and I will care for - so be it. We will just have to go some place els.

JJ_SO

@henrik1963 Mails and RAW-files have different purposes and sizes - this comparison is not working.

About photostream I also read less enthusiastic things. I myself went away from Apple after they closed down MobileMe galleries, replacing it by a much weaker product and I don't want to move my pictures again just because Apple has another marketing idea.

I also checked the "ApertureExpert"-site and I think, I will have to pay a visit to an Apple store, when the second Yosemite version will be released. The first versions are always a bit too buggy. I'd like to see the menus we only see the buttons so far. I really hope, Apple did a good job after let us waiting for soooo long.

henrik1963

@JJ_SO: One thing many people don´t like is having things in the cloud - hense the Gmail part. Maybe the solution Apple is working on lets you keep your pictures on a harddrive and only syncing them via iCloud?

I think it is clear that the Photos app is not for pro photogs. Most of the things Apple come up with works fine - why not the new Photos app? We may not like what Apple is doing. But most of the people working for Apple are not fools.

I don´t like what Apple is doing to Aperture - making it into a better version of iPhotos - but I can see what they are trying to do.

We will just have to see how it works - then we can make our minds up wether we like it or not.

Ade

Top level menus, Photos vs. Aperture: