New Photos app - fail

[Jim in Hudson]

Question on #4... in what format are you exporting to the Desktop prior to importing to Photos or Lightroom?

Preface by saying - I don't shoot raw too often and I have only recently started using C1, so this is more for the JPEGS

Depends... so far the majority have been the variants. I found a preset ICC profile that someone built for the FUJI XT-1 Classic Chrome (better than JPEG Neutral) and I like the way they look so I am using that.

Once they are exported I use the import tools. I wish the app did include an "automatically added to photos" directory like iTunes.

For example... this past Sunday we took some Easter pictures. When we got home i loaded them to C1 and applied the profile. I exported them to a folder called Easter. The folder was then imported into Lightroom with the COPY and not Move option. I then imported the same photos into Photos. Once imported I created a shared album with my wife for her to use on her phone and upload to Facebook. In case you have not tried yet, the Photos app on the phone can pull shared streams. She wanted one in B/W. I pulled up the image on my phone. Edited it with enlighten and save a new one back to the shared gallery. The new one is now in the "cloud". She was able to pull it down and upload to FB.

Thanks for replying. Just to make sure I understand, you're exporting and importing JPEG files and not doing it as RAW files converted to TIFF?

 

[christom]

Capture One Pro costs $300 while Photos is free and people are complaining they aren't comparable?

People are complaining because Apple killed Aperture for it.

Except that they didn't. Photos started its life as iPhoto X, it was never meant to replace Aperture. The release of Photos was just a convenient moment to announce that Apple has definitely given up on Aperture.

You didn’t know that — and nobody outside of Apple had even heard of “iPhoto X” — until about a month ago, so spare me the revisionist history.

Originally, Apple described the Mac version of Photos as a replacement for both iPhoto and Aperture, and many of the Aperture users around here naively took that to mean that Photos would be able to neatly replace both apps with new, modern functionality. I knew all along that it was BS, and people around here got upset at me for repeatedly saying so. Now that I’ve been proven right, you’re trying to spin it to sound like I’m the one who misunderstood Apple’s intentions? Really?

Guys like you make me embarrassed to be a Mac user.

Quoting Apple (from ArsTechnica)

"With the introduction of the new Photos app and iCloud Photo Library, enabling you to safely store all of your photos in iCloud and access them from anywhere, there will be no new development of Aperture. When Photos for OS X ships next year, users will be able to migrate their existing Aperture libraries to Photos for OS X."

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2014/06/apple-to-cease-development-support-of-pro-photo-app-aperture/

The problem is that the app took too long to get to market and developers have yet to tap into the extensibility. If you look at the power and extensibility of the IOS Photos app, you will what the future possibly holds

The iOS Photos app is junk. Photoshop Express is much better in effectiveness and usability. The difference is ridiculous. It's like the iOS Photos design team were told to design an app as unintuitive as possible, that takes many steps to do the obvious, and with tools that are awful at what they are supposed to do. It's actually quite embarrassing. The previous iOS iPhotos was also junk. Apple should simply buy Adobe and give it a rest already.

 

[Mark Alan Thomas]

Except that they didn't. Photos started its life as iPhoto X, it was never meant to replace Aperture. The release of Photos was just a convenient moment to announce that Apple has definitely given up on Aperture.

You didn’t know that — and nobody outside of Apple had even heard of “iPhoto X” — until about a month ago, so spare me the revisionist history.

He's not the one revising history. Photos, aka iPhoto X, was demoed last June at WWDC, nearly a year ago, not a month ago.

Nobody outside of Apple knew it was originally going to be called “iPhoto X” until a month ago when everybody, including you, read the same interview with Apple in which Apple finally admitted that Photos was more of an iPhoto replacement than an Aperture replacement. You know this, and you’re still twisting my words like a creature born of a jackal.

I used to have these kinds of arguments with PC users back in the day. Now it’s the “new money” Mac users who are so awful.

 

[Mark Alan Thomas]

The only real difference is that the White Balance brick is shown by default when you first install Aperture, but not when you first install Photos. The way the bricks work and the fact that you can hide and show individual bricks is otherwise just the same as Aperture.

To reveal the White Balance brick in Photos, you have to double-click a picture, click Edit, click Adjust, click Add, then choose “White Balance” from the “Advanced” section of the (now no longer) hidden menu.

In Aperture, the White Balance brick is visible by default, and remains visible unless you deliberately hide it, which nobody ever does because it’s one of the most important adjustment tools there is.

The crux of the matter is that in Aperture, White Balance is correctly recognized as a critical first step in image adjustment. In Photos, it’s an afterthought, hidden away in a secret menu where no one will ever find it.

White Balance has apparently been deemed too difficult a concept for the Photos target market.

 

[Hans de Zomers]

Capture One Pro costs $300 while Photos is free and people are complaining they aren't comparable?

People are complaining because Apple killed Aperture for it.

Except that they didn't. Photos started its life as iPhoto X, it was never meant to replace Aperture. The release of Photos was just a convenient moment to announce that Apple has definitely given up on Aperture.

I agree. And killing Aperture can only be interpreted as Apple not seeing a future for "applications like Aperture". And that's a bonus hint for Adobe.

People will be able to continue to use Aperture for a while longer. But knowing Apple they change their OSX APIs all the time and so I guess that it will take about 1.5 to 2 years from now before a change comes along in the OS that will cripple Aperture one way or the other.

 

[Mark Alan Thomas]

Capture One Pro costs $300 while Photos is free and people are complaining they aren't comparable?

People are complaining because Apple killed Aperture for it.

Except that they didn't. Photos started its life as iPhoto X, it was never meant to replace Aperture. The release of Photos was just a convenient moment to announce that Apple has definitely given up on Aperture.

I agree. And killing Aperture can only be interpreted as Apple not seeing a future for "applications like Aperture". And that's a bonus hint for Adobe.

Apple killed Aperture because Aperture was for professionals, and Apple’s target market is no longer professionals. Apple’s target market is consumers with iPhones.

 

[Mouser]

The only real difference is that the White Balance brick is shown by default when you first install Aperture, but not when you first install Photos. The way the bricks work and the fact that you can hide and show individual bricks is otherwise just the same as Aperture.

To reveal the White Balance brick in Photos, you have to double-click a picture, click Edit, click Adjust, click Add, then choose “White Balance” from the “Advanced” section of the (now no longer) hidden menu.

So, like I said, the only real difference being that Aperture has the White Balance brick enabled by default.

In Aperture, the White Balance brick is visible by default, and remains visible unless you deliberately hide it, which nobody ever does because it’s one of the most important adjustment tools there is.

That's a matter of opinion - personally I very rarely use it. I am an enthusiast who mainly takes travel photographs. If I were a professional who took portraiture or wedding photographs then I would no doubt agree with you.

The crux of the matter is that in Aperture, White Balance is correctly recognized as a critical first step in image adjustment. In Photos, it’s an afterthought, hidden away in a secret menu where no one will ever find it.

"Secret"? Is it really so hard to figure out how to add an adjustment:

White Balance has apparently been deemed too difficult a concept for the Photos target market.

Or they realised that most of the target market do not bother to use White Balance (in-camera Auto White Balance being excellent these days) so decided not to show it 'out of the box'.

 

[Mark Alan Thomas]

Or they realised that most of the target market do not bother to use White Balance

Bingo.

 

[Mouser]

Or they realised that most of the target market do not bother to use White Balance

Bingo.

So what?

(By the way, I suspect that most purchasers of Aperture rarely use 'White Balance' too...)

 

[Mark Alan Thomas]

(By the way, I suspect that most purchasers of Aperture rarely use 'White Balance' too...)

Cue laugh track.

 

[Mouser]

(By the way, I suspect that most purchasers of Aperture rarely use 'White Balance' too...)

Cue laugh track.

Cue your childish reply.

 

[Jensano]

I'm searching for a similar function. To have all my photos with full control over the filesystem (no full-library-system) and many editing capabilities and to have access to my photos away from home to show it to friends or to look at them by sitting on the couch and using my iPad.

Photos bring the feature by make them available on all my devices. But...

• Only a view editing capabilities
• The online space is limited to 5GB for free. At the moment my photos exceeding the 200GB so I have to buy storage 500GB for 10€/month.
• You have no control to your photos without the APP. The filestructure is build up on the import date. So it is not possible to view your files in a useful way without the APP.

To organize my files in to different Apps may work but is very extensive and brings up much failure in fileorganisation.

So unless I have to do it manuell "Photos" and "Lightroom" together is very hard work.

At the moment I am looking at Lightroom (Creative Cloud Abo) and Lightroom Mobile. This brings your Photos to your mobile devices without the limit of storage capacity. The benefit is instead of paying to Apple you pay up for Lightroom and are up to date all the time with your Lightroom version.

 

[Hans de Zomers]

Capture One Pro costs $300 while Photos is free and people are complaining they aren't comparable?

People are complaining because Apple killed Aperture for it.

Except that they didn't. Photos started its life as iPhoto X, it was never meant to replace Aperture. The release of Photos was just a convenient moment to announce that Apple has definitely given up on Aperture.

I agree. And killing Aperture can only be interpreted as Apple not seeing a future for "applications like Aperture". And that's a bonus hint for Adobe.

Apple killed Aperture because Aperture was for professionals, and Apple’s target market is no longer professionals. Apple’s target market is consumers with iPhones.

Do you really think they would kill the product if Apple expected the professional market to grow exponentially? Apple killed Aperture because they are convinced that it has no future... a strategic decision.

 

[shotguns]

The odd thing (to me) is that Apple makes a great computer for photographers to use (5K)... and soon(ish) to be 8K... and then, their best product for working on those photos is... "Photos"!

Sure, the 5/8K 'puter is not just for photographers - but still, here they are so nicely positioned to provide for "our group" but just can't seem to pull the software together. Guess they are happy to have others rule this domain on their hardware.

As for myself, I'm none to happy with the "Photos" app. Had just purchase Aperture not that long ago and NIK ware too. Now, on the hunt.

SO... what ARE the best alternatives to those who don't want full Photoshop? LR5 or?

 

[bohdanz]

Shotguns,

Here's what I use for post processing - and I'll admit I jump around several because I'm both learning them and seeing which I like the most.

For everything first - Lightroom to catalog my 70,000 images. (Now need to delete the ones I know aren't the best)

For post-processing
Photoshop CC ($9.99 a month)
Pixelmator - GREAT for only $20 investment. Does a lot of Photoshop does (and some features aren't there). But definitely worth the investment and support of the software company.
On1's Perfect Photo Suite - bought it several years ago, keep buying the upgrade and it gets better all the time. I think one day it has the potential to replace Photoshop for MY needs.

I've played with GIMP but remind myself I have enough of the other software apps so I go back to Photoshop and Perfect Photo Suite most of the time.

Check out Pixelmator, which gets my thumbs up for basic/medium features - and for being a Mac software company that gives a lot for a very small investment to the user.

 

[shotguns]

Forgot to say I aliso have and use Irident Developer and their other products. Perhaps I should use LR5 for catalogs. Still need tools for dodge/burns and such. Will check out those you mentioned...

 

[stratobill]

(By the way, I suspect that most purchasers of Aperture rarely use 'White Balance' too...)

Cue laugh track.

Cue your childish reply.

I use Lightroom and I at least check white balance on every single photo.

I suspect that most serious users of Aperture do the same.

White balance is often off, at least on my Canon cameras.

 

[noirdesir]

(By the way, I suspect that most purchasers of Aperture rarely use 'White Balance' too...)

Cue laugh track.

Cue your childish reply.

I use Lightroom and I at least check white balance on every single photo.

As do I, though if I shoot a lot of images under the same lighting conditions, I usually adjust the WB on one photo and then stamp those settings onto the rest. Sometimes that is enough, mostly though I need to subdivide the images into smaller groups for which one WB setting fits. And it often takes several attempts, ie, I manually set WB on one image and stamp it on twenty others. Then I might fix it on one or more of the twenty and try to sync those to the whole group. If the lighting is truly the same, the set of images usually should have the same WB to have the same look, unless the images are completely unique and don't show the same subject, then fine-tuning the WB on every image can make sense.

 

[Mark Alan Thomas]

Capture One Pro costs $300 while Photos is free and people are complaining they aren't comparable?

People are complaining because Apple killed Aperture for it.

Except that they didn't. Photos started its life as iPhoto X, it was never meant to replace Aperture. The release of Photos was just a convenient moment to announce that Apple has definitely given up on Aperture.

I agree. And killing Aperture can only be interpreted as Apple not seeing a future for "applications like Aperture". And that's a bonus hint for Adobe.

Apple killed Aperture because Aperture was for professionals, and Apple’s target market is no longer professionals. Apple’s target market is consumers with iPhones.

Do you really think they would kill the product if Apple expected the professional market to grow exponentially? Apple killed Aperture because they are convinced that it has no future... a strategic decision.

I think what you’re saying is just another layer of the same onion, and I agree with it. Apple’s focus is on consumers now, and the pros had all moved to Lightroom anyway, hence Aperture had no future.

 

[Hans de Zomers]

Capture One Pro costs $300 while Photos is free and people are complaining they aren't comparable?

People are complaining because Apple killed Aperture for it.

Except that they didn't. Photos started its life as iPhoto X, it was never meant to replace Aperture. The release of Photos was just a convenient moment to announce that Apple has definitely given up on Aperture.

I agree. And killing Aperture can only be interpreted as Apple not seeing a future for "applications like Aperture". And that's a bonus hint for Adobe.

Apple killed Aperture because Aperture was for professionals, and Apple’s target market is no longer professionals. Apple’s target market is consumers with iPhones.

Do you really think they would kill the product if Apple expected the professional market to grow exponentially? Apple killed Aperture because they are convinced that it has no future... a strategic decision.

I think what you’re saying is just another layer of the same onion, and I agree with it. Apple’s focus is on consumers now, and the pros had all moved to Lightroom anyway, hence Aperture had no future.

I agree with one slight difference. I don't agree that all professionals have moved to Lightroom anyway. Sure, many did *after* Apple announced the demise of Aperture but most professional photographers that I know who are on the Mac ecosystem (over 90% uses Mac) all used Aperture. Also looking in the Mac store, Aperture was in the top 3 selling photo apps in about every country and my estimate is that it raised about $30 million per year. And I don't think that the cost are higher than even a fifth of that. There was no commercial reason to kill Aperture. So what does it tell you (rhetorical). To me that indicates that Aperture (as well as iPhoto) didn't match their vision for the future of digital photography software. Apple is typically very strong at that. As always it will take Abode about 2 to 3 more years to draw the same conclusion.

Bookmark this page today: by April 2018 (3yrs from now) the Lightroom customers will be very unhappy because of the lack of development pace. April 2020 (5yrs from now) Abode will have abandoned it completely. Of course this is just my view on it, worth nothing.