Aperture is Dead. Long Live Photos!
I received an official call from Apple PR this morning about the future of Aperture. My phone, twitter and Messages have been ringing off the hook since the announcement was publicly made. But I wanted to take some time to really think this through before shouting from the rooftops. So here we go.
On the surface, it doesn't seem like good news, but there's a lot more to this than a few lines of text. First, the official words.
“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.” — Apple, Inc.
In short, Aperture as we know it is dead. So let's take a step back and figure out what this really means, because obviously photography is far from unimportant to Apple. There are more questions than answers now than ever before, and I'll try to come up with all the right questions and all my best answers. Call this interpretation, speculation, or clairvoyance — but here's how I'm reading into this.
Why? Why Photos 1 and not Aperture 4?
Before we can look to the future, let's look at the past. Aperture itself has been around since 2005; nearly a decade. And of course it started being written well before that, so we are talking about 10+ year old code. The cloud, the iPhone, and pocket sized digital cameras that surpass the quality of film not only didn't exist, but were barely a twinkle in Steve Jobs' or any technologist's eye. Aperture is a photo editing and management tool written for users used to an old school workflow. Go on a shoot. Sit down to edit. Share when you're done. But that's not the world we live in anymore. Today we want to shoot, share immediately with a cool effect, edit on an iPad, sit down at your 4k display and get serious, pick up the iPad and show off what you've done, mix, repeat. We want our devices, our libraries, our experience integrated and seamless. This simply can not happen with Aperture as it is today.
This is a case of evolution vs revolution. Apple could continue to evolve Aperture, and to be honest I wish they had—in 2011, 2012, 2013. But now it's too late. Now it's time to focus on the future. The next generation of photos architecture. The revolution. We saw this in the WWDC 2014 keynote. We saw Photos in iCloud. We saw seamless integration between an iOS device and the desktop. We saw a glimpse of features that clearly couldn't exist in Aperture. We saw the future.
Everything could be based on PhotoKit. It is now for iOS, but that same thing could happen in OS X. That would mean seamless integration between iOS and OS X, and unheard of third party developer access. We saw the new raw processing engine with lens correction and phenomenal noise reduction, for example, in WWDC sessions. All the groundwork is in place for an amazing experience.
For those of you who edit video, you'll remember the transition from Final Cut Pro to Final Cut Pro X. It sucked. Big time. And frankly, Apple handled the PR of that poorly. Major features were missing, the software was buggy as hell, and yet Apple told the Pro market that it was time to move. After some serious backlash they relented, and re-relesed Final Cut Pro 7 for the existing users, so they could wait for FCP X to mature. And mature it has. Today, Final Cut Pro X is an amazing piece of software. Apple isn't making that mistake with Aperture. But it doesn't change the fact that it's time to move on.
For a happier look at the migration path, look at iWork — Pages, Keynote and Numbers. Great apps that were developed long before iOS, and once iOS came out, new versions of those apps showed up there. Lots of feature parity, lots of feature disparity. The more the iOS versions advanced, the more inferior the OS X versions felt. Until finally, Apple threw away the old apps, and released all new versions that were based on the same new code. At first, all the features of the old iWork weren't there. But Apple worked relentlessly and continued to update the software (free updates, by the way) and today those apps are fantastic. And more to the point, they are virtually identical across platforms (except for font support. Don't get me started on font support).
Now, it's the third time for this to happen. To your photos. And it has begun.
Will Photos.app version 1 have all the features of Aperture 3?
Very unlikely. Apple has stated that users will be able to migrate their existing libraries. They have also stated that there will be at least one maintenance release to ensure that Aperture is fully compatible with OS X Yosemite. Put those together, and it tell us that just because you can migrate, doesn't necessarily mean that you should. Since they say that you can however, that has to mean that any existing effects and metadata will be intact. I just wouldn't necessarily expect to be able to edit them in version 1. As Photos.app evolves however, at some point you should have all the same features — and of course a ton of new ones.
When should I migrate to Photos?
It's too soon to tell that now, but I'd wager that iPhoto and beginner Aperture users will be able to migrate immediately, while more advanced Aperture users may want to wait for another version or two. Since Aperture will continue to be supported at minimum for OS X Yosemite, personally I think version 1 will be fun to play with, and probably start a new library with. Maybe not for pro work, but I'll use it where I can. The integration between iOS and OS X will be too sweet to ignore. And as long as it has the “open in editor” feature, I can always use Photoshop and plug-ins for anything Photos can't do. Then as Photos.app progresses, once the legacy Aperture is no longer needed, I'd migrate my entire library. It'll take time, but it won't stop me from doing my job. And I think it'll be worth the wait.
I'm a pro—I don't need iOS iCloud iPad iShare
No? That's OK, I still enjoy shooting film, too. But for the rest of the world that has gone digital, this is happening. You may not be posting your client shoots to Instagram, but your clients are getting more demanding. Wanting on-site reviews. Remote reviews! Fast turnaround to their never-ending change requests. High resolution images delivered to prepress and small ones for their Facebook page. All these iFeatures will come in handy.
What if OS X was more like iOS from a developer standpoint?
OK, now let's have some fun. Think about your iPhone or iPad for a minute. You shoot or import or download a photo, and where does it go? To the Photos app. That' a super simple app today, but we already know that's changing. OK.
Now, think about all the other third party photo apps on your iPhone. Where do they get their photos from? Photos app. Where do they put them when you're done editing them? Photos app. Some have their own storage as well, but thats only for one reason — to maintain non-destructive edit-ability. Even iPhoto for iOS works that way.
Now, look at iOS 8. We already know that iOS 8 elevates third party apps to the same level as Apple apps. They can access the same library in the same way that native apps can. So that whole “store it in your own app” issue should go away.
What does that mean? Simply put, that Photos is a single storage location for all your pictures, regardless of what app you choose to edit them with. Pretty cool, right?
Now for the big reveal.
Consider the possibilities
Extrapolate that to OS X. What if OS X worked the same way? What if Photos for OS X was built on PhotoKit, and what if PhotoKit was integrated into the OS itself. What if third party apps on OS X could access your Photos.app photo library the same way that iOS apps can (and will be able to in iOS 8)?
Suddenly you have an ecosystem where the library is the hub. No more one-time, stuck-with-it-forever decision if you should use Aperture or Lightroom or Bridge or anything else. Photos.app stores your photos and allows some level of editing. Future Nik plugins apps access that same library. Future Lightroom accesses the same Library (!!). Future Photo Mechanic. MacPhun, onOne, Alien Skin… name your app, name your plugin. In this utopian future, all apps have the same access to all photos. PhotoKit could make that possible.
Now that's cool. All this on a photo library based in the cloud.
1TB isn't enough for me
We saw in WWDC that Apple will have pricing plans for iCloud up to 1TB, which we've already observed isn't enough. But that's an easy problem to solve. So don't worry about that. I think by the time you're ready to move your entire 5TB Aperture library to Photos, there will be an iCloud option available to you.
Sounds great, but eff this, I'm outta here!
Undoubtedly Apple will lose some users to Lightroom. That's inevitable, and I'm not going to say “they'll be back!”. But they probably will :-) As before, for most of us diehard Aperture users, we've added plugins or other apps to enhance the Aperture experience to do everything Lightroom does, and more. There's no reason for that to change. At least now, finally, we can see the future, and we don't need a crystal ball to do it.
What does this mean for ApertureExpert.com?
Well, a name change at minimum :-) Any suggestions? I'm serious… I looked at PhotosExpert.com but it's owned and is being held anonymously. I'm open to suggestions, because the future of this site will be awesome. I will be able to write about not only a single app and it's plugins, but any OS X or iOS app that connects to the Photos architecture. I smell growth.
Now, go make some photos
We can chat and comment and speculate and pontificate endlessly about this, but at the end of the day, if you're not out shooting, none of this matters. So stop reading, and go make some pretty pictures. And dream big about the future. Because it's coming, and it'll be awesome.
UPDATE
I've responded to the many comments here in a new post, “Comment Follow-up on the Demise of Aperture”. Please read that before commenting here. Thanks!
Official Apple image of Photos on OS X Yosemite
Comments
on June 29, 2014 - 8:56am
Will,
there are a lot more to it in Aperture than what you write.
Just to mention the multiple possibilities for white balance, multiple adjustments blocks, multiple curves, mid contrast, all brushable in/out….or just go into the add adjustment for a long range of other tool.
on June 29, 2014 - 10:32am
http://neonsqua.re
on June 29, 2014 - 8:00pm
No doubt there’s a lot more in Aperture and Photos both. All I have to work with is their one UI still. I found the comparable panel in Aperture 3 and did my comparison. Photos has more options. That doesn’t mean feature parity, but it certainly suggests that Photos is likelier to resemble Aperture than iPhoto. Until we see more shots of the UI, we don’t know . I’m just encouraged by the contents of the one screen we see.
As for brushable effects, iPhoto for iOS has this, so it is definitely a feature I expect to see in both the OSX and iOS version.
The fact is, Apple has realized they do best by getting out of the software business and into the platform business. When Aperture 3 launched, Apple charged $29 for Snow Leopard. One generation before, Leopard cost $129. Now the new OS is free, and gives them a platform to drive App sales where they make most of their money. By building a great, extensible Photos app, they stand to create a platform that will generate way more revenue than selling Aperture 4 ever would have. But they need the basic application to be good enough to generate the requisite installed base. That means prosumers and professionals apt to buy plugins. So they have every *financial* incentive to make this work for Pros.
Regardless, they really don’t know how to inform their customers in any meaningful way other than in a Keynote, and that’s a problem.
on June 29, 2014 - 8:13am
My own investigation took me back to the WWDC Keynote, where they demonstrated the simple interface of Photos and offered a peak behind the curtain at the deeper software underneath.
The simple interface has a”Light” slider and a “Color” slider. Want to adjust an image? The software will brighten or darken or saturate or desaturate your image when you adjust that slider. But they showed, without going into too much detail, that these smart adjustments were actually several adjustments made in concert with each other. So making the image brighter with the “Light” slider might actually adjust the exposure up but the highlights down, while boosting shadows and contrast. All handled automagiclally with that one slider and based on the content of the image, to keep it looking good. But you have access to all of those sliders if you want that.
So I looked at the interface of the OSX Photos in the UI still that was released yesterday, and here’s what I found:
Under the “Light” slider, you have: Exposure, Highlights, Shadows, Brightness, Contrast, and Blacks.
Under the “Color” slider, you have: Saturation, Contrast, and Cast. Note: this “contrast” is shown having a different value than in the Light heading, leading me to guess that it is color contrast, or what Lightroom calls “Vibrance” and Aperture calls “Vibrancy.”
Under the “Black and White” heading, Hue Strength, Neutral Boost, Photo Tone, and Grain.
Definition and Vignette have sliders.
White Balance can be selected (“Neutral Gray” is shown) and Warmth has a slider.
There is also a five point levels tool with a monochrome histogram. This is in addition to the 6-color histogram at the top of the UI.
These are all shown to be the tools in one of four toolsets on the far right of the UI. The other icons are Crop, Band-Aid, and a three-circle Venn Diagram icon (“effects” in iOS iPhoto).
So that’s plenty to work with. More than Aperture, in fact.
Reminding myself of the Aperture UI by visiting the product page (I no longer have it installed, having switched to LR years back), the adjustment tools there are:
White Balance (“Natural Gray” selected) with a warmth slider. Identical in Photos.
Exposure, Recovery, Black Point, and Brightness. All but Recovery is in Photos, but Photos has Highlights and Shadows.
Contrast, Definition, Saturation, and Vibrancy: All but Vibrancy is in Photos, but I’m guessing the “Color Contrast” is exactly Vibrancy.
Tint has no obvious analogue in Photos from the still that was released. Unless that’s “Cast.”
So there we go. No guarantee, obviously, but I’m willing to bet that importing an image library from Aperture will see edits transitioned seamlessly, or at least as seamlessly as the move from Aperture 2 to Aperture 3. And haven’t people been clamoring for a new, more-feature-rich version of Aperture for years now? It seems to be called Photos.
on June 29, 2014 - 8:45am
Well, don’t panic !
Overnight, Lightroom didnt fix the slow import, the fewer/restricted DAM, the cluttered user interface or missing featurest, the missing integration with osx/ilife/iwork and they certainly did not fix their price policy and license blubber. Or for that matter, all the other reasons we had for not transferring to LR.
And Aperture still works as usual, no features have disappeared.
So no reason for jumping ship in a hurry.
Yes, there have been issues in the past when transferring to a new system/new update, but today, who misses the old iMovie or the old FCP7 ? Anybody stuck with those old tools who cannot see the improvements in the new ones ? Anyone ?
I certainly do NOT miss the older versions. but transition time may have been a bit long.
Personally i will continue with Aperture and see, what we are getting in the future. If - at that time its necessary to find new tools - who knows, maybe even lightroom have been fixed/stolen more good features from Aperture, and Adobe may have removed the madness kind of price policy, so the transfer would be interesting.
PS. but i miss iWeb and partly soundtrack…. :-(
on June 29, 2014 - 10:11am
“who misses the old iMovie or the old FCP7?”
Lots of post production houses STILL use FCP 7 as their main editor, but they will have to chose Avid/Premiere route this year, since you can’t run FCP 7 on the latest hardware. We still use fcp7 in my company (30+ editing suites) but we have chosen Adobe, cause FCP X does not work for us in such a big company with fast turn-around (yes, you can call that pro user workflow if you want :-)
on June 29, 2014 - 10:26am
Sad news Joseph, I wonder who owns the photo expert website name, a member of Apple maybe? I wouldn’t mind the name staying the same, even AperturePhotoexpert sounds good. Let’s hope this is all worthwhile and not and not just a money grab by Apple.
redsquare
on June 29, 2014 - 10:29am
Sad news Joseph, I wonder who owns the photo expert website name, a member of Apple maybe? I wouldn’t mind the name staying the same, even AperturePhotoexpert sounds good. Let’s hope this is all worthwhile and not and not just a money grab by Apple.
redsquare
on June 29, 2014 - 11:20am
I’d like to think Apple would do well with Photos but I’m not confident. As a Mac Sys Admin they have often stuffed migrations to the point of ’wipe everything and start again’. I really do hope they can get it right as, like most I suspect, I have many, many hours invested in keywording, ratings, albums, web pages and adjustments. As far as saving to the cloud, that’s simply not practical and won’t be a requirement so I’m not too worried about this.
For now, I’ll still use Aperture (I’m on Mountain Lion) and the only immediate change will be to make sure EVERYTHING new is referenced files. A year ago I spent some quality time reorganising my library planning for a move to referenced images in case I needed to change to LR. As it turns out I still hate LR (was on the original beta program and have looked at every version since). I’ve gotten lazy over the past few months and saved some things into the Aperture Library but it shouldn’t take more than a day to fix.
As far as alternatives, I have a copy of Capture One Pro and it’s not too bad. I can live with Aperture until Photos arrives and then make the hard decision. I have betas of Yosemite on an external SSD so will test Photos on an external first.
As far as Adobe - my dislike of them has descended into loathing after the way they are trying to force people to the cloud. I have no interest in supporting them. What I would love to see would be someone like Pixelmator pick up the ball and run with an Aperture alternative. They’re done a remarkable job with Pixelmator and I’m sure they could do a great job with a non-destructive editing DAM.
on June 29, 2014 - 12:02pm
Well, for now, all I can say is sack Apple’s communication team! Appallingly short on information for Pro Photogs! Not good!
Now, is it me? IWork has received only minor improvements, nothing more! Let’s get real here.
Yes Aperture will work with Yosemite, but will Apple update Raw processing to be compatible with my new Nikon D810? Who knows, probably not!
Just pleased the T/Bytes of images I have are in referenced Libs. Very easy to bail out!
Problem is I don’t trust Adobe in any way, and loathe their subscription model. Not that impressed with Lightroom either!
Come to think of it, can we really trust any of these large corporations any more?
I would say absolutely not!
on June 29, 2014 - 1:55pm
http://neonsqua.re
on June 29, 2014 - 3:49pm
Exactly, minor updates still massively short on functionality. Keynote is now worse than embarrassing I am afraid.
on June 29, 2014 - 4:05pm
http://neonsqua.re
on June 29, 2014 - 1:56pm
RAW is processed at the OS-level.
If you bail out you lose your edits unless you export them baked in.
Likely all Adobe will go subscription model as the feat/famine cycle of updates has proven to be a revenue crisis-maker for developers.
on June 29, 2014 - 3:56pm
Yes RAW is updated at the OS Level. My point was will Apple bother to update the RAW processor for new cameras? This is imperative to me!
Apple’s communication team really is worse than useless. Pro’s left hanging by Apple once more!
Apple’s hand is now clearly readable. Like many others they simply must never be trusted!
on June 29, 2014 - 4:07pm
Apple’s iOS 8 Photos base application is what to look at. Here is what it promises:
1) In-device RAW processing Apple’s lowest power CPUs
2) Non-destructive RAW editing
3) Third party app accessibility to the same image data
4) A standardized image library on device and a persistent iCloud Photo Library because device storage cannot keep up
5) At photo streaming in some form, and likely others
6) Robust third party sharing (FB, Flickr, etc.)
It sounds like the iOS 8 Photo app will be able to handle RAW at the OS level, so I suspect any Mac OS X version of their Creative app for Photos will as well. Not worried there.
In fact, I suspect Photos may have a plug-in architecture for alternative RAW processors.
I agree with Thom Hogan that Adobe is the one who looks isolated. They are locked into a very, very small user base who require substantial storage and processing but complain about paying $75 every 4 years for those features. Apple and especially iOS have eaten their low-end completely.
on June 29, 2014 - 7:11pm
I do not understand the desperate tone of your question. I have been following updates to Aperture and Apple has been pretty good, and reliable, at putting out raw updates to newer cameras. They support my micro 43 camera and they also support the m43 camera that I plan to buy in the future. Now that raw updates will be system wide, that would put an even greater priority on raw. I have not seen any evidence that Apple has left any photographers high and dry when it comes to the issue of raw updates. If there is a camera that Apple has left high and dry I would like to know about it.
on June 30, 2014 - 5:32am
Nick I think they will continue to support RAW formats for all cameras.
on June 29, 2014 - 3:59pm
Having been forced to use LR when I was doing my Commercial Photography course I could not wait to get back to Aperture. Now it is early days and a lot of water needs to go under the bridge before Photos App is released. I will wait to see what it brings to the table before throwing my arms in the air. And there is a good chance that Aperture will still be usable for a while longer after it is killed off. Hell I can still open and use iDVD and iWeb in Mavericks and Apple killed those ages ago.
on June 29, 2014 - 7:13pm
I use iDVD! I love that program.
on June 29, 2014 - 4:30pm
I can only say what, after a lot of reflection, I will do. I’m going to move my photos to LR. I have the PS/LR subscription and it doesn’t bother me the way it does others.
I have ~1TB of photos in Aperture. I’ve started watching video tutorials on LR. I do NOT like their DAM and it’s nowhere near Apertures. My smart albums are invaluable to me. The sorting choices in browser mode are amazing. The way I can filter for EXIF, IPTC, Camera Model, etc. are fantastic.
Having said this, I’m not going to wait for Apple. I know many pros and prosumers who use LR happily. Photos app may be OK. It may be surprisingly robust. But I’m not going to wait. I think Adobe has a commitment to the SERIOUS photographer and I don’t trust that Apple does. I think they’re really after the current crowd of iPhone photographers. And, they may be right that that is their sweet spot. I was flabbergasted when I was in Spain and Portugal this summer, shooting some amazing cathedrals, at how many were using phones and, GASP, iPads to shoot. And how few were carrying DSLRs. So, the remaining 3,000 photos I have from that trip will be going into a folder structure that I can access from LR (and Photos if it’s better than I think).
I do realize that I’m gong to have to “bake” my non-destructive edits of RAW files and export them as jpeg files. I guess I’ll go through my projects and start eliminating the one and two stars and export the rest. I am a computer-based photo guy, who doesn’t care a whit about editing on my iPad or iPhone. Apple has just let me down one time too many.
Edit: I was going to get a year’s subscription to Lynda to learn more PS techniques. So, I’ll just be spending time with LR tutorials.
on June 29, 2014 - 4:38pm
Adobe will never tap into any Apple library no matter how beautiful the API. Naturally they will make import modules to migrate from that, but they will not take part in a seamless OpenDoc-like eco system. It’s in their veins to bring their own solution so they are independent and get x-platform compatibility on the fly. We’ve seen that over and over so it’s just not going to happen.
You are also wrong in your analogy with FCP. Aperture is really what FCPX became. FCP7 [in video workflows] was more like Photoshop to photographers. This announcement make me anxious Apple is going to kill FCPX and it’s just in time when that environment has started to fly. Like with Aperture, Apple finally got the database right and it’s easy to switch between multiple databases. That’s paramount for any team and company. I can already see the press release: the market is small and the professionals haven’t picked up… When neglecting the professionals they might try to convince them they should store their media in the cloud, which is a ridiculous idea! The professionals are left to choose between a struggling but flexible system from Adobe or one that is closed and prohibited and will lock them into an expensive pattern from the third A-player.
It’s for sure a very dark road ahead as there is nothing which will replace Aperture. All we can do is hope we don’t have to stop updating the OS anytime soon. I know many who will stop updating the systems just to keep the Aperture workflow.
I smell a business agreement just to improve the relationship. It’s like the Samsung crap they sell at Apple Store and the Samsung OEM parts and RAM modules they use in computers when every Apple layer are in full battle with the same company. The users will continue to suffer under this board and they just prove again they didn’t learn anything from stupid board decisions lately.
on June 29, 2014 - 5:22pm
Joseph, thanks for the follow up tips article summarizing most of the replies to this post. I, for one, plan on hanging in with Aperture and waiting to see what the future Photos app develops in to. I must admit I was briefly tempted to seriously look into Lr and spent some time trying to play with it but quickly abandoned that choice. However, I can respect anyone who chooses to do otherwise. But for me, iIf two years down the road the promise of Photos is not fulfilled, I’ll make my choice then. A whole lot can change between now and then in this rapidly changing field between hardware, software and the process of storage. So, I’ll be one of those remaining tuned into this site whatever it’s name is. Thanks for your perspective on this which is shared by a few other respected bloggers such as Thom and Derrick. Cheers and as I commented upon quite a few pages ago, “Stay Calm, Aperture On.”
Florian Cortese
www.fotosbyflorian.com
on June 29, 2014 - 5:44pm
When I read the news about Aperture, my thoughts about how Apple seems to not be interested in photographer’s interest came to mind immediatley. The updates to Aperture have been far apart to make me realize there doesn’t seem to be much care about their customers. I thought as some have expressed that maybe the best thing to do now is go to LR. I have been resisting it for years in that it is not as good as Aperture and besides I also have many years of photos, especially of family.
It looks like Apple along with Microsoft and Adobe are trying to get people on cloud based systems for their increased revenue rather than having an interest in their customers. Like others I will wait to see what happens next year but it doesn’t look good.
rafaria
on June 29, 2014 - 5:45pm
I too was freaked out at the thought of losing Aperture 3 but like many here I will continue to use it until it is no longer viable. I had already set up a referenced solution so that I could edit my work in Lightroom if I wanted. I did this because I was thinking that at some point I might want to use a photo in another editing program and had already seen th2t Aperture’s library, as well as Lightroom’s library too, was unable to share the originals. By switching my photo libraries to separate hard drives that are simply drives with the original RAW files I can then use Aperture or LR by managing the files as referenced files. This also has the additional advantage of keeping the Aperture and LR libraries much smaller and easier to move should the need arise.
http://speeddemon2.com
on June 29, 2014 - 6:46pm
Joseph, much of what you say is very encouraging. But one of Aperture’s great strengths is as a DAM. Aside from cloud storage (possibly optional in any event), we apparently know nothing about it’s DAM capabilities. Do you know, Joseph, if this will provide us with a similar flexibility in organization, with at least as complete a set of metadata fields, with hierarchical keywording, and so on. I sure hope Apple doesn’t dumb down the DAM capabilities to iPhoto level. That’s the one thing that would surely cause me to abandon Apple’s new Photos universe, which otherwise holds promise (he said, trying to see the glass half full).
on June 29, 2014 - 7:08pm
I don’t have the answer, but I would suspect that it would have a robust DAM feature. The “masses” need to find photos just like everyone else. I would be surprised if that was removed entirely. It may be changed and simplified, but I suspect it will be there.
on June 29, 2014 - 7:16pm
Aperture’s DAM is nothing more than iTunes for photographs…. it’s no rocket science. It’s not going anywhere. Relax.
JT
http://www.johnthawley.com
on June 29, 2014 - 6:55pm
I can’t believe this, but I guess I’m the only person with this question: will I be able to batch process photos in the new “Photos” app for OSX? It’s the 1 big feature Aperture has over others like Photoshop, Pixelmator and others. And it is this feature that appeals to Professionals. (I’m not a pro, but I do use this feature).
This is the only question to ask because if you can have full functionality of Aperture into the OS I could care less what you call the program. I just want to be able to edit my raw photos and manage them as well.
on June 29, 2014 - 9:38pm
I will look for ANY alternative as long as it doesn’t have Adobe (or Microsoft) involved. I have tried several iterations of Adobe (long after I gave up on the ghastly MS) and Adobe’s brain circuitry is in serious conflict to mine so sorry Adobe …. you lose out.
I desperately hope that Photos (or Photos Plus / Pro?) fits the bill and that Apple hasn’t really dumped their huge base of photographers - amateur (me) and pro who have spent many hours learning and appreciating Aperture (and iPhoto)
on June 29, 2014 - 10:46pm
Have you considered LightZone?
on June 29, 2014 - 9:39pm
I will look for ANY alternative as long as it doesn’t have Adobe (or Microsoft) involved. I have tried several iterations of Adobe (long after I gave up on the ghastly MS) and Adobe’s brain circuitry is in serious conflict to mine so sorry Adobe …. you lose out.
I desperately hope that Photos (or Photos Plus / Pro?) fits the bill and that Apple hasn’t really dumped their huge base of photographers - amateur (me) and pro who have spent many hours learning and appreciating Aperture (and iPhoto)
on June 29, 2014 - 10:37pm
Well, it may be a good idea in principle to have stuff in the Cloud…however, our Broadband connection in rural Norfolk, England is so slow it has just taken 25 minutes to upload 6 low quality jpegs to Facebook…..!!!!!
It must be fairly evident from that, that Cloud storage is simply not viable here…..and in many other parts of the UK I suspect….
Dave B
on June 29, 2014 - 10:38pm
Well, it may be a good idea in principle to have stuff in the Cloud…however, our Broadband connection in rural Norfolk, England is so slow it has just taken 25 minutes to upload 6 low quality jpegs to Facebook…..!!!!!
It must be fairly evident from that, that Cloud storage is simply not viable here…..and in many other parts of the UK I suspect….
Dave B
on June 29, 2014 - 10:47pm
It would be nice to know what comes next but I suspect the exact feature set isn’t nailed down yet. We can get some idea by looking at the image provided with this article and by reviewing the PhotoKit features trotted out at WWDC. No doubt Apple knows much more than they are saying but then that’s part of Apple’s “one more thing” culture. We love it, we hate it, but that’s what Apple does. I also suspect there are others who have signed NDAs who may be actually working with beta versions that also know more than they can say. For whatever reason - it’s just not Photos time to shine - yet. Right now I am asking myself why are folks like Joseph and Thom Hogan so enthusiastic about this potentially dreadful news? It could be they are simply very positive people or it could be they know more than they can say. All I know is when I opened Aperture today it all worked exactly like it did the day before Apple’s announcement. I have time and I can’t wait to see how Apple shifts the paradigm.
on June 29, 2014 - 10:51pm
+1
on June 30, 2014 - 12:06am
Nick, on June 29, 2014 - 3:02am, Very good comments.
“Come to think of it, can we really trust any of these large corporations any more?”
We can trust them to do what’s makes them the most money.
I have been with Aperture since v1.0 and I was pretty angry when I first heard the “news”. Now having slept on it, I feel a bit more rational.
I think what I am hearing is that Apple is getting out of the editing business and they are giving us plenty of advance warning.
I am not going to cease using Aperture because it’s a fabulous organizational and sharing tool that integrates well with Apple’s “ecosystem”. I have not doubt those features will translate to Photos.
However, I will no longer import images into Aperture as Managed. On Friday June 27, I created a folder for all new image downloads.
I will never again depend on one program, or company, to be all encompassing for my image workflow. I am going to restructure my workflow and folder system, to accommodate multiple editors.
The end result will be the ability to choose the best tools for editing while still retaining the organizational power of the Mac/Apple.
on June 30, 2014 - 12:14am
Standing and applauding. Yes to all of the above.
on June 29, 2014 - 11:43pm
I felt betrayed when reading the announcement today and ranted against Apple’s forcing everybody into the (their) “future”. I was a case of the comment on your other post, as I just started seriously learn Aperture and invest time trying to optimize my amateur workflow. I actually first thought “wow, bad news, Joseph from ApertureExpert must be crazy about it”.
I was quite surprised to read your optimistic take on the news. Thought you must have been well convinced by Apple’s PR or something. But as the changes you described come, we may as well be serene and wisely look at the future. As long as choice and creativity subsists in an ever more “Apple-ish” world.
on June 29, 2014 - 11:51pm
Good decision! That means a “referenced” library system, NOT managed.
I made that decision some time ago, for the very same reasons. I wanted to be able to change systems when necessary. The real challenge is to decide HOW you want to set up your referenced library, once you decide to do it.
Anyway, on my referenced system, Aperture and Lightroom can access the same photos and I can use either program to enhance photos, depending on which one I think would do the job better. Frankly, these days, I spend most of my time in Lightroom.
And I love Lightroom, just as much as I ever loved Aperture. In my opinion, they are both great programs. So, I am baffled by the animosity so many people express about Lightroom. Lots of people I respect use it, like Scott Kelby, and Peter Krogh. Okay, Julianne Kost is an Adobe employee, but she does great Lightroom tutorials on YouTube — for FREE! George Jardine is a former Adobe employee and he also does great tutorials but you’ll have to pay. Also check out the French photographer, Serge Ramelli. His stuff is wonderful and much of it is FREE on YouTube.
My point is that you will find lots of support for making a transition to Lightroom, if that’s what you think you should do. And, truly, it is worth making the effort. Also, if Apple ends up astounding us all and making Lightroom look like a train wreck, you will still be able to make the transition back, so long as you build a solid referenced system.
P.S. Any metadata information you have added to your photos will be readable by Lightroom. However, the enhancements you have made will not. Unless, that is, you export files out of Aperture in a file format that supports your enhancements, like TIFF or Photoshop — not RAW.
Ry Glover
on June 30, 2014 - 12:06am
Thank you Ry.
Yes a referenced library. I started that way but a few years ago, switched to managed for convenience. I regret that move.
I am giving much thought now on to how to restructure my editing and storage/cataloging workflow so as to be independent of the editing tool(s). That probably will mean storing the edits under the tool’s folder and exporting finished products as jpeg or tiff then linking them to the catalogue software.
I will be downloading a trial version of LR soon. Perhaps today. I gather it gained an edge over Aperture a while ago. I also occasionally use Nikon software because it downloads Nikon Raw better than any other I have seen. I have used the Nik plug-ins under Aperture. Will be upgrading that to stand alone.
This actually feels really good, now that I have gotten my head around it.
on June 30, 2014 - 1:51am
Ry, you can easily convert your Managed Libraries to Referenced Libraries by selecting “Relocating Originals…” in the file menu. I have been doing this over the past 9 months. It’s pretty quick depending on what type of connection your drives use. You just need to decide how you want to organize your original ‘referenced’ files. I renamed them all by year/date/index and put them in folders by year/month on a Drobo. They should be easy enough to find with whatever editing software I end up with in two years.
Scott Stuart
on June 30, 2014 - 12:02am
Thank you Joseph for all of your work on this website and with your tutorials. You have been one of the few places we can learn to use and enjoy Aperture. Apple really has not done much to teach or market their product in the last few years …. you have!
That said, I believe you are probably 80% (make up your own number) correct on the direction that Apple is taking. For me, as a hobbyist, I have found the Apple lacks the integrity for me to count on them. They should have made these announcements many months before last friday. Their vision of the future will probably suit many photographers, both pro and nonpros. For me, I have started the migration to LR5. For me, it is not horrible, but I have not been in love with Adobe for a long time. I have hedged my bets by getting a licensed copy and not their cloud version. You know that there are only two dynamic (think phase analysis) states …. centralized versus distributed. Technologists and consumers shift back and forth at some resonable cycle time between these states. Remember, central office versus PBX or main frame versus desktop. I remember the abortive MS Money …. lost track of my accounts for several months! I am thinking about getting your proverbial shoe box and starting out again with film.
I will keep observing the Aperture/Apple movements in the next year …. I think Apple has already missed the boat and Abobe or Google or someone else will take the lead.
JWS
on June 30, 2014 - 12:03am
Thank you Joseph for all of your work on this website and with your tutorials. You have been one of the few places we can learn to use and enjoy Aperture. Apple really has not done much to teach or market their product in the last few years …. you have!
That said, I believe you are probably 80% (make up your own number) correct on the direction that Apple is taking. For me, as a hobbyist, I have found the Apple lacks the integrity for me to count on them. They should have made these announcements many months before last friday. Their vision of the future will probably suit many photographers, both pro and nonpros. For me, I have started the migration to LR5. For me, it is not horrible, but I have not been in love with Adobe for a long time. I have hedged my bets by getting a licensed copy and not their cloud version. You know that there are only two dynamic (think phase analysis) states …. centralized versus distributed. Technologists and consumers shift back and forth at some resonable cycle time. Remember, central office versus PBX or main frame versus desktop. I remember the abortive MS Money …. lost track of my accounts for several months!
I will keep observing the Aperture/Apple movements in the next year …. I think Apple has already missed the boat and Abobe or Google or someone else will take the lead.
JWS
on June 30, 2014 - 12:31am
Appreciate all the views but you would have to conclude Apple has treated its Aperture customers poorly. If the announcement had been properly managed we wouldn’t be running around in circles. My take is -
Sync via the cloud ok
Store on the cloud full of issues with the Australian pricing of the net usage
Ok we move to Adobe for processing - goodbye Apple if that’s what they want
What about video - iMovie is a great program for many of us - where is that going
Is it generally assumed Apple is moving away from the pro shooter/series amateur to the point - shoot and immediately share mass market. Cheers Everyone!
John Tilyard
on June 30, 2014 - 12:34am
I have to say I’m hugely impressed by the optimism I’m reading on this thread. Sadly, though I am trying hard, I cannot share that optimism.
The new Photos app is described on Apple’s website http://www.apple.com/ios/ios8/photos/ - I recommend you have a look. There’s a lot about how wonderful iCloud is, but not much else. Apart from iCloud, some features do get a mention…
Smart composition tools “Don’t worry if the composition isn’t perfect when you shoot. Even after you take your photo, Photos can automatically straighten horizons and provide the ideal crop”
Smart adjustments “Modify the overall light in a photo with a single control. Behind the scenes, Photos intelligently adjusts exposure, brightness, contrast, and more”
Photo filters and editing tools “Make your photo stand out even more by applying one of the Apple‑designed filters”. Filters include Luminous and Waterlogue!
Time-lapse videos.
Searching “Search by the date or time the photo was taken, location, or album name”. The benefits of iCloud will enable you to search anywhere - even on a train” (assuming you’ve got a 3G signal). But note that keywords are not mentioned.
None of this means that the Photos app will not have all of Aperture’s features and more. But it does give us a valuable insight into Apple’s THINKING. And, to me, that thinking is blindingly obvious - Photos is aimed fairly and squarely at Point & Shoot iPhone users, not pros.
Look back over ApertureExpert.com. Lots of complaints about Aperture’s lack of modern features. But, as far as I know, the lack of iCloud integration and “smart composition tools” have not often been identified as serious weaknesses.
So as far as I can see, we have two options.
Option 1. Wait for one, probably two, years while Apple gets Photos up to speed with a reasonable feature set, i.e. WAIT for an app that MIGHT be NEARLY as good as Aperture and could well LAG BEHIND the competition. or
Option 2. Jump ship now to a product that is arguably better than Aperture and will continue to equal or better Apple for at least several years. And grit your teeth and put up with a poor UI and a wallet robbing price.
It isn’t an easy choice. But all the waits and mights and maybes in option 1 are pushing me towards option 2.
PS. For those with managed libraries - going over to referenced is a doodle (select your images then File/Relocate Original…). Just practice with a handful of images initially because it’s very easy to produce an appallingly bad file/folder naming structure.
Anaxagoras, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
on June 30, 2014 - 1:41am
People here are confused.
Apple has two OSs: OSX for Mac and iOS.
Photos for both are completely different because of CPUs and storage etc. It’s not even close.
Photos for iOS is premised on NEVER having to interface with a personal computer. EVER.
Because….hold onto your hats….within 10 years the personal computer will be an anachronism. Sales to households are already stalled, perhaps in decline.
This means that Macs are, by default, going to be positioned as a higher-end tool for those businesses and hobbyists and power users who really do require more power.
So to say that iOS 8 prefaces that Photos for the Mac will be mostly for the iPhone crowd completely misses the market and the point.The iPhone crowd has ZERO need for a Mac. none. They can edit straight on iOS and sync to iCloud Photo Libraries.
So Apple needs to sell Macs with superior features (and a new programming toolkit in Swift) for all users. Apple beefs up third party support big time and looks to be positioning Photos as container library system intrinsic to the MacOS in the same way fonts are intrinsic.
The whole idea of referenced files living in Finder-level folders scoured by a database is archaic and increasingly difficult to support, particularly given their size and backup considerations.
Apple’s thinking is probably light years ahead of us because they can see user and market trends dow the road. One of the major ones is how many people feel absolutely swamped by digital images, videos, and messages. It is Adobe that is going to b fish out of water with a shrinking market tied to desktop PCs, a subscription system that phones home, and a user base where they spend 99% of the time arguing over tweaks to obscure lens profiles. You could put an Apple engineer on lens profiles for a single Panasonic body at 400 hours of work and only serve 300 customers and then that body/lens combo is obsolete 18 months later. It’s insane.
Apple’s strategy is likely to evolve to tell the photography industry to write their own plug-ins within a strict ecosystem or their devices will not interact well with Apple devices. That’s a no contest argument in favour of Apple. In the end, your cameras will get smarter and more integrated (and simpler) because they need to.
on June 30, 2014 - 1:56am
The whole idea of referenced files living in Finder-level folders scoured by a database is archaic and increasingly difficult to support, particularly given their size and backup considerations.
I’m not quite sure of the point you’re trying to make here but I tend to think a lot of the organisational work Aperture did (keywords, ratings, albums etc) will end up being handled by the OS with Tags and other meta data. From what others are saying it sounds like RAW processing is already an OS function and with PhotoKit it seems much of the editing will be done at OS level also.
The advantage of holding files in a basic Finder type structure is backing up. Time machine will already be handling local backups and moving stuff to iCloud will be no different to the way BackBlaze etc work - trickling stuff as required. All the associated meta data will travel along, without the need for a separate database.
No idea if this is what is planned, I’m just thinking out loud and I might be way off the mark. It just seems that Spotlight (indexing) and Tags is the direction in which Apple is headed for organisational tasks.
on June 30, 2014 - 1:40am
Why Apple didn’t wait until the release of ”Photos” & update of Aperture and then announce that they will discontinue Aperture?
on June 30, 2014 - 2:15am
Its unfortunate. I disagree that Apple cares for professional photographers like myself with this direction. I have have no love for Adobe but unless Photos manages off the cloud and has all of the same features as Aperture, I will be leaving and going to Lightroom. Also I have checked and all of my plugins I invested in can be moved over to Lightroom. I am very disappointed in Apple and I think that they do not care about pro users as they make too much money trying to make the average joe think that they are a photographer. No wonder I see people trying to make a living as a professional photographer being low balled all the time.
I will not be upgrading past Yosemite if it means loosing Aperture.
Rick
Best Regards,
Rick
Pages