Understanding that the current Photos beta does not support third-party extensions, I’m wondering if relying on extensions was a good idea to begin with. Wouldn’t such a extension-based workflow make a user reliant on a small third-party vendor keeping their extension up-to-date with the latest Photos, or worse, risk losing edits made by extensions should a third-party vender go out of business.
Maybe I’m missing something.
In my opinion not only small vendors could write extensions. What about google with its Nik Collection? Could be a perfect extension for Photos.
If that was your fear then your only real solution is to use only Adobe products, as they have a significantly deeper level of support and longevity to digital photography than anyone else, including Apple. I don’t buy into that argument. Plus, unfortunately, the villian here is Apple itself, not the third party. As an example, the plug-ins I have from Topaz Labs also work in Photoshop. So, Apple screwed me over with Aperture, but I can still use the third-party tools in Photoshop from Adobe.
So if you are worried about being future-proof, you should not fear Topaz Labs, NIK, OnOne, etc. YOU SHOULD FEAR APPLE. :(
Bill Jurasz
Austin Texas
Sorry, yes I’m still pissed about this whole Aperture thing.
Bill Jurasz
Austin Texas
I understand your frustration. We all feel it. As I write this, I’m in the process of moving my photos to Capture One as that is the closest thing to Aperture out there and the raw processing is superior to any other – including Aperture.
But my point wasn’t so much a fear as it were pointing out a potential problem had all our wishes been grated with Photos v1.0. As you recall, we all knew that Photos, as a standalone application, would not be at the same level as Aperture today. However, in last year’s WWDC, it was made very clear in a breakout session that the architecture would revolutionize plug-ins from a “destructive” model to that of a “non-desctructive” adjustment. This is something that is not offered by any other vendor. Hence our hope for Photos v1.0.
However, here’s the scenario that seemed problematic: I have a photo in Photos v1.0 for which I used a third party to make an adjustment (e.g., blur). Then, Photos v2.0 comes out requiring all third party providers to update their “non-destructive” plug-in. However, the company that makes the “blur” adjustment that I used on a photo does not update their software to be compatible to Photos v2.0 (e.g., they are delayed, or go out of business, etc.). As a result, that blur adjustment could very conceivably no longer work and previously blurred photos no longer have that edit. Or worse, the photo is unrecognizable to Photos v2.0 and won’t load.
In this scenario, I can’t simply go to an Adobe product or some other vendor because today, Adobe (nor anyone else) does not have this type of “non-destructive” plug-in architecture.
Having worked at Extensis on their photography side of their business (e.g., Portfolio and all their PS plug-ins that are now owned by OnOne), this was but one of the many headaches we dealt with when Adobe (and Apple with OS updates) updated their software. It’s one of the reasons Extensis sold their plug-ins. Not much money in that business and it was a constant drain on software dev just to keep plug-ins working (forget improving them).
This is a well-thought out point. It’s one thing to wait for Apple/Adobe/whomever to update their raw converter for your new camera or lens. It’s quite another to be dependent on multiple companies to do that continuously.
I am also testing C1, but there is one thing which really does bother me:
After having developed my images in C1 (and the same would be true in LR), how can I easily send those images to iPad or Apple TV. Of course I do now that I can export them as jpg, but than I would have all images stored twice which is more then just annoying…
This was one of the really perfect things in Apples ecosystem. Every change in Aperture was automatically reflected on iPad as well.
I completely agree, it’s extremely frustrating.
That is a good point, Gerald. But personally I’ve had less than great success at photo sharing even when completely in the Apple ecosystem. :(
Bill Jurasz
Austin Texas
Gerald…
I hear you on that one. It does suck to leave Apple. In fact, I feel somewhat personally misled. I have friends at Apple who are a part of the Aperture/iPhoto/Photos team. When I expressed my disappointment/concern about their announcement around the sunsetting of Aperture, I was told: “I think you’ll be pleased with Photos.” Not a lie to say that… but given the context, very misleading.
But I look at your noted dilemma like this now. It’s like my music collection. If I want to listen to a nice mix of music, I stream it from iTunes library to my stereo. But if I want to hear that same song in its full glory (i.e., lossless), I go to my stereo, look for the CD and play that. Yes a pain… but I deal with it.
That’s what I have a hard time swallowing–I know we’re all only using a beta, but how can this be “it”? Exactly, are they just lying? Or is there much more to come? The current “Shot on iPhone 6” campaign reinforces that Apple just wants you to use your iPhone for photography, which isn’t encouraging.
We who lug real cameras with us everywhere may be outnumbered by the iPhonographers, but we’re still an important slice for mindshare. Can you imagine how happy MSFT would be if we all decided that shooting tethered to C1 on a Surface Pro was the way to go? What a great campaign that would be.
I don’t know, maybe we don’t matter anymore.
We matter… just not to those who only care about a P&L. Adobe users need to be concerned too. Just reading about the future of Photoshop in the NY Times recently should keep them awake at night.
But we matter. Here’s proof: “The Invisible Photograph”
Is it possible for you to get back to your friends on the Aperture/iPhoto/Photos team and ask them if this is the version of Photos that you were supposed to be pleased with?
Next chance I get… but I think I’d rather ask them at what point did Apple start conceding defeat. This isn’t the Apple that refused to quit when book value was firmly in their rearview mirror and they were looking at their doors being chained locked. Money wasn’t the reason why they didn’t quit then.
I get that - but I doubt that line of questioning will be very productive…
If they are persuaded about the work they do they will of course answer with yes. :-)
Best regards, Alex
Respectfully, the shipped has sailed. No conversation about how we feel about it will be productive.
As one of the 3rd-party software developers implied in the original email, I can say that we (Macphun Software) are very interested in getting our hands on the SDK and seeing exactly what it takes to build extensions to make Photos for Mac more powerful and useful to folks who demand a higher level of editing performance.
To the point about keeping whatever we write current over time, it’s in our best economic interest to do so, just like we keep up with the vagaries of each OSX release, RAW camera files, etc. That’s simply the business we’re in and we always release standalone versions of the apps (alongside the plug-ins), so there’s an option for people in case edits need to be re-created.
Kevin La Rue, Skylum
How do we have to imagine this to be? Are these all plug-ins that we would have to open as separate elements? Is that way a convenient way for the user? Or how integrated will such an addition to photos be?
Best regards, Alex
I think we’re all waiting to see… ;-)
Agree that it must be smooth or it will just be terribly painful.
Kevin La Rue, Skylum
Speaking for myself - it would be wonderful to see MacPhun bring their terrific talent to the Photos environment. That would be excellent.