Need recommendation for photo editing app for Mac OS Sequoia

[Vetteran]

My LR6 installed on Mac OS Sequoia is no longer working. Requests for "Adobe Application Manager".

My LR6 was from Leica back in the days when Leica included standalone LR with camera purchases.

Anyway, need new Apple compatible photo editing recommendation. I only use photo editing apps occasionally and would prefer to avoid a monthly subscription solution.

Thank you.

 

[jaberg]

I use Nitro for raw processing and Photomator, which can also process raw, for adjustments to “developed” images. Both can work with images in Apple’s Photo.library or via the file system.

Affinity Photo, recently made free by Canva, is also in my collection. I don’t use it often because it doesn’t work directly with my image library, but the tool is worth a look.

 

[Vetteran]

Thank you

 

[DM-CO]

Have you looked at Apple’s Mac-based “photos” software (not the iOS version….. the Mac version). There are people on this site who use it and find no need for any other stuff —- and it’s free. When I looked at it I found it to be “quite capable”. Perhaps give that a try since you already have it installed on your Mac? And, if you want to keep your library local (not in the cloud), you CAN do that on Mac Photos.

That said, I use Photomator and affinity now as I am moving away from LR and adobe.

 

[Glen Barrington]

Have you looked at Apple’s Mac-based “photos” software (not the iOS version….. the Mac version). There are people on this site who use it and find no need for any other stuff —- and it’s free. When I looked at it I found it to be “quite capable”. Perhaps give that a try since you already have it installed on your Mac? And, if you want to keep your library local (not in the cloud), you CAN do that on Mac Photos.

That said, I use Photomator and affinity now as I am moving away from LR and adobe.

I've found Photos to be a fairly decent raw developer, at least for the basic stuff, and an OK touch up editor, but it really needs a good bit mapped, layers capable editor for more advanced work.

I also think its photo management tools need some work. If you are a casual, low volume, user, it's probably just fine. But once you get a large database accumulated, say 10,000 to 20,000 photos or more. It becomes rather awkward to manage, and find, the stuff you are looking for.

In my opinion, it's almost what I'm looking for, but not quite.

 

[DM-CO]

I've found Photos to be a fairly decent raw developer, at least for the basic stuff, and an OK touch up editor, but it really needs a good bit mapped, layers capable editor for more advanced work.

I also think its photo management tools need some work. If you are a casual, low volume, user, it's probably just fine. But once you get a large database accumulated, say 10,000 to 20,000 photos or more. It becomes rather awkward to manage, and find, the stuff you are looking for.

In my opinion, it's almost what I'm looking for, but not quite.

I agree with all of your assessments. But, since the OP was using LR6, he may actually find the FREE Apple photos for the Mac a step up in some areas.

 

[Vetteran]

I checked out the Mac Photos App yesterday. Seems useful.

Need to print to see if colors/printer profiles are consistent like LR6.

 

[Adam2]

What are your requirements? DAM, RAW editor, subscription/not, etc. Include those and perhaps we can help you.

 

[Godfrey]

For macOS systems, I bought the Adobe LR/PS subscription way back when and have been grandfathered through every version since for the same ~$10 per month. I only use LR Classic, although I have installed PS once or twice to do an extraordinary need, but it's unusual for my photography. I use LR Classic enough that it's worth the $120/year.

I've been experimenting with Photomator on the iPad and it works quite well. Photos works decently but is too lacking in too many ways to cover all my bases, particularly with regard to photo management (I have hundreds of thousands of photos in my LR Classic library). SnapSeed on the iPad or iPhone also works well (albeit the latest revision has gotten to be annoyingly complicated and gets in the way too much). Affinity Photo was a decent alternative to PS but I never got friendly with it; Photomator seems to work more smoothly for me.

There are many others. Poke about, experiment, find what works for you.

G

 

[Love_my_R5]

I use Nitro for raw processing and Photomator, which can also process raw, for adjustments to “developed” images. Both can work with images in Apple’s Photo.library or via the file system.

Affinity Photo, recently made free by Canva, is also in my collection. I don’t use it often because it doesn’t work directly with my image library, but the tool is worth a look.

I also recently downloaded Affinity. Looks good for basic editing including RAW. Not exactly a replacement for LR though.

BTW, I am still running LR6 on an Intel Mac mini (2018) running Monterey. If you have a Time Machine backup of a system where LR6 was working, it may still be possible to restore. Re-installing LR6 is not possible for several reasons including that the original installer was 32-bit and therefore will not execute on recent versions of macOS.

 

[DM-CO]

What are your requirements? DAM, RAW editor, subscription/not, etc. Include those and perhaps we can help you.

He already did.

 

[jaberg]

I also think its photo management tools need some work. If you are a casual, low volume, user, it's probably just fine. But once you get a large database accumulated, say 10,000 to 20,000 photos or more. It becomes rather awkward to manage, and find, the stuff you are looking for.

My library is well over “20,000”. I organize my Photos library exactly a I did previously in Aperture and, briefly, in Lightroom. Folders for years that contain folders for months. Albums inside each month folder for each event, plus general albums for ongoing projects. One advantage of the Apple database is that a single image can live in multiple albums. (For example, within its event and also within an ongoing project.) A disadvantage is that there isn’t a genuine versioning system.

Finding stuff is, at its worst, no more difficult than when using a file heirarchy and is at times helped by the (improving) search function.

 

[Zeee]

I also think its photo management tools need some work. If you are a casual, low volume, user, it's probably just fine. But once you get a large database accumulated, say 10,000 to 20,000 photos or more. It becomes rather awkward to manage, and find, the stuff you are looking for.

There is no known limit to the size of the catalogue which is just a database. Biggest one I have read about to date was for just over 13 million files.

 

[Glen Barrington]

There is no known limit to the size of the catalogue which is just a database. Biggest one I have read about to date was for just over 13 million files.

That's just it, as a retired DBA, I know there is a difference between "Being able to run" and "runs well".

In a relational database, which I believe the Photos database is, 13 million photos, are more than 13 million files. there are indexes, Album records, collection records, at least one Library record (possibly more. the user will likely break a database that large into multiple Libraries, each with it's own overhead, for response time reasons.). Even a hierarchical database, while faster than a Relational DB, for huge data stores, will not be as fast as it would on a much smaller Data Store, depending on the hardware on which it runs.

Now, if you try to run something that large on, say, a Mac Mini, you will run into problems. Add into the real issue that, Photos, as a free app, is not going to get priority attention when it comes to maintenance, fixing Errors & Omissions, that sort of thing. I won't get into finding a specific photo with collections and albums only. If you don't know exactly WHICH of those the photo is likely to be in. (Gonna be SLOW)

This is why I would say the Photos app should be left to the casual user, and there's nothing wrong with that. It is perfect for my wife, for instance. It's easy to use, and better than Google photo software, (She doesn't even know she is doing backups on her Mac mini. She's happy, and I'll look like a hero at some point in the future!

But I just can not recommend Photos for ANY photo database containing images that will cause some sort of financial, or business loss .

A database that large will have a lot of economic value to a photographer or an organization. Shoot, my 20,000 photo database has economic value, to me, at least. So high speed back ups and disaster recovery, all become issues for that large database. Simple backup utilities built into the OS, like TimeMachine are not up to servicing that sort of database. A backup would take days and days, could actually be a week or more.

I might trust a backup system run by Lightroom, ACDSee, On1, etc. for my puny photo library, but NOT for a 13 million photo database. THAT database is irreplaceable, losing my database would cost some money maybe, but it would not turn my life upside down. So I trust the backups from the dedicated apps as adequate for My needs.

I like Photos, for what it is. But it is not the tool for everyone.

 

[Zeee]

That's just it, as a retired DBA, I know there is a difference between "Being able to run" and "runs well".

In a relational database, which I believe the Photos database is, 13 million photos, are more than 13 million files. there are indexes, Album records, collection records, at least one Library record (possibly more. the user will likely break a database that large into multiple Libraries, each with it's own overhead, for response time reasons.). Even a hierarchical database, while faster than a Relational DB, for huge data stores, will not be as fast as it would on a much smaller Data Store, depending on the hardware on which it runs.

Now, if you try to run something that large on, say, a Mac Mini, you will run into problems. Add into the real issue that, Photos, as a free app, is not going to get priority attention when it comes to maintenance, fixing Errors & Omissions, that sort of thing. I won't get into finding a specific photo with collections and albums only. If you don't know exactly WHICH of those the photo is likely to be in. (Gonna be SLOW)

This is why I would say the Photos app should be left to the casual user, and there's nothing wrong with that. It is perfect for my wife, for instance. It's easy to use, and better than Google photo software, (She doesn't even know she is doing backups on her Mac mini. She's happy, and I'll look like a hero at some point in the future!

But I just can not recommend Photos for ANY photo database containing images that will cause some sort of financial, or business loss .

A database that large will have a lot of economic value to a photographer or an organization. Shoot, my 20,000 photo database has economic value, to me, at least. So high speed back ups and disaster recovery, all become issues for that large database. Simple backup utilities built into the OS, like TimeMachine are not up to servicing that sort of database. A backup would take days and days, could actually be a week or more.

I might trust a backup system run by Lightroom, ACDSee, On1, etc. for my puny photo library, but NOT for a 13 million photo database. THAT database is irreplaceable, losing my database would cost some money maybe, but it would not turn my life upside down. So I trust the backups from the dedicated apps as adequate for My needs.

I like Photos, for what it is. But it is not the tool for everyone.

Yes you would to have the gear/storage for something that size. The person who did that had a specific single project and likely kept it simple. I only posted to say there is no limit to the to the size of the catalogue. I doubt too many of us will ever get any remotely close to that.