[6BQ5]

I just read the Ars Technica review. The kind of liked the App but admitted that they have left advanced users and pros out in the cold.
Editing with Photos for OS X, Apple?s iPhoto (and Aperture) replacement | Ars Technica

Here's a quote from the article. It echoes what I have read on other sites.

"If you want to be able to compensate for lens warping or to do basically any of the advanced stuff listed on the Aperture page, it doesn't look like that's what Photos is for."

The sad thing is that one day Photos may turn into an Aperture program with all the features we see today but it will too late. Current users will have transitioned away for the most part and the caught-up program will match what Aperture was when development was stopped. How many years will that be?

[boriscleto]

Here's a quote from the article. It echoes what I have read on other sites.

"If you want to be able to compensate for lens warping or to do basically any of the advanced stuff listed on the Aperture page, it doesn't look like that's what Photos is for."

The sad thing is that one day Photos may turn into an Aperture program with all the features we see today but it will too late. Current users will have transitioned away for the most part and the caught-up program will match what Aperture was when development was stopped. How many years will that be?

I don't think it will ever catch up to where Aperture is today. The current leadership of Apple obviously thinks still photography is now the realm of camera phones and selfies. iPhoto and Aperture were Steve Jobs products. I don't think Steve was a photographer himself, but he loved to show off the photos pros took for him.

Apple will continue to develop their pro video and audio products, because that is where they think the market is. They flat out told the few pros who used Aperture to migrate to Lightroom. I would take another look at AfterShot Pro if I thought Corel was serious about it.

[jamarley]

I would take another look at AfterShot Pro if I thought Corel was serious about it.

and when has Corel been serious about anything Mac-related?

[reeftool]

Apple will continue to develop their pro video and audio products, because that is where they think the market is. They flat out told the few pros who used Aperture to migrate to Lightroom. I would take another look at AfterShot Pro if I thought Corel was serious about it.

They dropped their pro video software a couple of years ago and then brought it back after the outcry, especially when they realized they were likely to loose a lot of Mac sales. I remember reading some stuff at the time that the Adobe Premiere Pro version for the Mac wasn't as good as the Windows version so it would have meant that a lot of those Mac Pro users would be switching. This could come back to bite them as Apple's relationship with Adobe hasn't been all that great in recent years. In the long run, I think Apple has decided that professional level photo software will cost them more to produce and keep updating than they will get back. Microsoft got out of the photo editing business years ago. I'm a Lightroom user so even if I switch to a Mac (which I'm considering), it won't concern me much.

I can understand why a lot of Aperture users are upset. You get used to using your editing software and almost come to expect that it will be updated and improved. Imagine if Adobe decided to discontinue Lightroom and told users to use the free Photoshop Express.

[Paul the Sunman]

I can understand why a lot of Aperture users are upset. You get used to using your editing software and almost come to expect that it will be updated and improved. Imagine if Adobe decided to discontinue Lightroom and told users to use the free Photoshop Express.

Actually, it's worse than that. Not only do we have to move to another editing program for future photos, but if Aperture stops working at some stage in the future, all our previous RAW edits are lost. Remember, Aperture does not actually change the RAW file at all. To save and future-proof everything, you'd have to do jpeg or tiff conversions.

[6BQ5]

One day Aperture will no longer work on a "current model" Mac. That's a given. What we don't know is when. Apple could do something on purpose to break compatibility and force users to import their libraries into Photos. Alternatively they can simply let bad circumstances for Aperture unfold in the name of progress for other apps. In that case Aperture may be crippled until one day it simply won't load.

It may be worthwhile to export every single photo in our libraries as 25-50% scaled JPG a files as a kind of contact sheet. If you see something you want to revisit then you can always retrieve the original image from the library manually. Open up the library in the Finder by right-clicking on it and click on Show Contents. You can either search by file name or drill down the directory structure if you can decipher it. From there you would have to import the image into your new processor and redo the edits. Who knows, you may end up with a better image on the second go-around because your skills have improved and the new software you are using is better.

Still, it's sad that Aperture is going away. Years will pass before another program like it ever comes around.

[boriscleto]

They dropped their pro video software a couple of years ago and then brought it back after the outcry, especially when they realized they were likely to loose a lot of Mac sales. I remember reading some stuff at the time that the Adobe Premiere Pro version for the Mac wasn't as good as the Windows version so it would have meant that a lot of those Mac Pro users would be switching. This could come back to bite them as Apple's relationship with Adobe hasn't been all that great in recent years. In the long run, I think Apple has decided that professional level photo software will cost them more to produce and keep updating than they will get back. Microsoft got out of the photo editing business years ago. I'm a Lightroom user so even if I switch to a Mac (which I'm considering), it won't concern me much.

I can understand why a lot of Aperture users are upset. You get used to using your editing software and almost come to expect that it will be updated and improved. Imagine if Adobe decided to discontinue Lightroom and told users to use the free Photoshop Express.

You are referring to Final Cut Pro X. When it was released in 2011 it lacked many of the features of the previous version, and had a completely new interface. Apple told its customers that those features would be missing, at first release, but that the old version would continue to work. An online petition was started that demanded Apple either continue development of the old version or sell it to a third party. That petition had over 9000 signatures.


The biggest complaint from the editors was that the Apple engineers were trying to impose new workflows on them, and they knew better than the engineers. Lots of pros jumped ship and still refuse to use FCP even though most of the missing features have been addressed by Apple in free updates or by third parties. But lots of video editors still use it so Apple is still developing it. New users who aren't entrenched in old ways of doing things simply don't care.

[boriscleto]

One day Aperture will no longer work on a "current model" Mac. That's a given. What we don't know is when. Apple could do something on purpose to break compatibility and force users to import their libraries into Photos. Alternatively they can simply let bad circumstances for Aperture unfold in the name of progress for other apps. In that case Aperture may be crippled until one day it simply won't load.

It may be worthwhile to export every single photo in our libraries as 25-50% scaled JPG a files as a kind of contact sheet. If you see something you want to revisit then you can always retrieve the original image from the library manually. Open up the library in the Finder by right-clicking on it and click on Show Contents. You can either search by file name or drill down the directory structure if you can decipher it. From there you would have to import the image into your new processor and redo the edits. Who knows, you may end up with a better image on the second go-around because your skills have improved and the new software you are using is better.

The update to 10.9 and the update to 10.10 both broke Aperture until an update was applied. I see no reason why 10.11 won't be the same. And the update for 10.10 was the last Apple is doing.

The Lightroom Aperture Importer doesn't import the adjustments, but it will import the JPEG preview and stack it with the RAW file. And all photos that were adjusted in Aperture are presented in a collection.

[6BQ5]

Yep, I remember the disaster known as Final Cut Pro although I am not a user of that software. Unfortunately, I can't wait several months or years while Apple reintroduces what I consider basic features like brushes and curves.

[boriscleto]

Yep, I remember the disaster known as Final Cut Pro although I am not a user of that software. Unfortunately, I can't wait several months or years while Apple reintroduces what I consider basic features like brushes and curves.

Apple is not going to do that for Photos. Something was said of third party plug-ins last fall. But none of the previews said anything about that. I think that is something that has been removed from the software.

[RGlasel]

I've never been an Aperture user, but changing workflow habits is hard to do, and those habits contain many unwritten scripts that get applied to our photos in order to get a look that we are comfortable with, and make it easier to remember where everything is and why we did what we did. There is no way to effortlessly transfer those habits to another piece of software. If you have to make the break, why not archive all of your images processed in Aperture as TIFF files, so if you or someone you developed a photo for wants an exact copy of what you did in the past, just in different dimensions, you don't have to worry about the new program importing your edits correctly. If you want to revisit your images to tweak them, there are advantages to going back to unedited RAW files, and applying different techniques to suit what you want today, instead of trying to replicate what you wanted two years ago. I've been replacing the photos I exported to my DLNA server (because I don't like the way they look on my HDTV), and most of the original post-processing is just getting in the way. If I was a professional, and a client wanted a reprint, they would most likely want an exact copy, not a new version, and for printing, it's usually easier to get the same final result if you work from an archived TIFF file than to set up your PP software two years later.

[Paul the Sunman]

In a more sensible world, Apple would sell Aperture, and it would live again. But they really don't give a stuff about power users, so I can't see it happening.

[reeftool]

Actually, it's worse than that. Not only do we have to move to another editing program for future photos, but if Aperture stops working at some stage in the future, all our previous RAW edits are lost. Remember, Aperture does not actually change the RAW file at all. To save and future-proof everything, you'd have to do jpeg or tiff conversions.

Adobe is working on a migration solution. There's no knowing how good it will work.
Adobe developing Aperture to Lightroom migration tool, releases step-by-step transition guide | 9to5Mac

[normhead]

At this point, I'd rather stop upgrading, I'll keep the 27 inch iMac as a photo editing station. Most of the Facebook world upgrades etc are pretty much worthless to me anyway. I have mapping software on my 7 year old core 2 duo that's the same. The operating system hasn't been updated for 5 years, and it still works fine. I will however definitely buy a big cheap drive and save everything possibly worth keeping to tiff once a month.

Quite simply stated, I haven't trusted Apple software since they killed iWeb. I use what I have, I wouldn't buy anything new from them. Their plans have proved to be away more ambitious than their ability to produce. They dabble in areas more serious companies find profitable, and then bail when they realize they can't compete with those companies. It's exactly the same reason I used to hate Microsoft.

[acoufap]

I was Apple Aperture 3 user from the beginning and learned how to use curves, local adjustments etc. I was really happy with this nice piece of software. But over the time I missed functions like digital filters, lens correction and good noise reduction.

So last summer I skipped to Capture One Pro and I am now happy with version 8. Very flexible user interface, fast, a lot of functionality Aperture never had. And the local adjustments layers tool is one that I wished Aperture would have had as I started using Aperture 3.