6 Months Since Aperture (& iPhotos) Death

[OreoCookie]

Lightroom / Lightroom Mobile do exactly that today.

No, they're not: You have to manage what data you want to sync manually. For instance, there is no support for Smart Collections (e. g. »photos I took in the last 2 months«). And you can only sync a single library with Lightroom Mobile for the moment. The big thing that I want (and I know I'm not alone) is to have all this automatically. And that's the thing you want to achieve, otherwise you can always use Dropbox or some other service to just see your photos. Managing multiple devices still requires a lot of bookkeeping and manual labor.

Don't get me wrong, Adobe understands this very well and it is clear by their actions (going to a subscription model, iPad apps, etc.) that it is trying to get there as well. They're walking in the right direction, but it's still quite a way to go. They have a much taller order to fulfill, though, because they cater primarily to advanced users.

 

[VirtualRain]

To insist that it is designed for iPhone users is completely missing the point, and the app has not much to do with the iPhone. Photos is designed to give persistent access to all photos across all devices and the web. The iPhone is only important has right now, it is one of the most popular cameras on the planet, but to claim it's an app for the iPhone is myopic. I think there are plenty of users who think that persistence across devices is something very desirable, and I don't think it has anything to do with the pro/non-pro divide. Having all the infrastructure in place for this is an endeavor that is cutting edge as you need a lot of pieces to fit together, starting from the integration into OSes to the services side.

If you told professionals that their photo libraries magically sync across devices, so they could show photos to a client on their iPad, edit others with their Retina MacBook Pro in the field and finish the fine tuning on their iMac in the office. I think many pros would love to live in such a reality. Or are people juggling with multiple libraries and referenced photos because they like the complication? It's just that the requirements of more advanced users are much higher, they (rightly) demand more flexibility. I don't think any company will be able to tackle this problem without first solving it for a simple case first. To me, this is the role of Photos. And you're right that it's not flexible enough for advanced users. But it's not a product born out of a company which is focussed on a single product, the iPhone.

And photos as well as music are a comparatively simple use case, I'd like that all of my files are handled in this way, that the OS smartly caches certain files but accesses others via the cloud.

In general, I use my iPhone to take photos of receipts and documents to store in Evernote, the label of a nice wine I want to buy later, price tags on goods for something I want to compare the price to online later, some funny thing to share on Facebook, and rarely some actual landmark or scene that I would actually add to my photo collection. About 99% of these photos can stay on my phone... I don't need to see them anywhere else.

I use my DSLR for more serious photography, and out of 100 photos, only about 30 will be keepers that I process and post to my collection on Flickr and of that, I'll usually pick the best 10 to share with friends and family on Facebook (and folks here on POTD).

I really don't see how Photos and iCloud syncing across devices helps me.

 

[OreoCookie]

I really don't see how Photos and iCloud syncing across devices helps me.

But do you think persistent access to photos is a feature that many people want or not (maybe spread across several synced libraries so you can, say, separate personal life from work)? I do think a substantial amount of people does. Things like Dropbox offer partial solutions when you think beyond photos.

 

[VirtualRain]

But do you think persistent access to photos is a feature that many people want or not (maybe spread across several synced libraries so you can, say, separate personal life from work)? I do think a substantial amount of people does. Things like Dropbox offer partial solutions when you think beyond photos.

I think there are three problems photographers need a solution to...

1. Getting their photos from their camera to their computer
2. Editing their photos so they look their best
3. Sharing their photos with the world/friends/family

For #1, Apple's iPhone, Photos app, and iCloud is a great solution... but only if you use an iPhone as your camera. It's perfect for my GF or Daughter who just want to get their photos off their phone to their laptop to view on a bigger screen.

For #2, Apple is clearly focusing on simple JPEG editing. Serious RAW conversion and editing is now the domain of Lightroom, Capture One, DxO, etc.

And #3 is not currently solved well by iCloud or cross-device syncing. Flickr, Facebook, Smugmug, Zenfolio all do a better job of this than iCloud. The people I want to share my photos with are not with me to look at them on my device. They are here on this forum, living across town, or on the other side of the planet. So the fact that I have a copy of my photos on all my devices doesn't help me at all with #3.

 

[robgendreau]

But do you think persistent access to photos is a feature that many people want or not (maybe spread across several synced libraries so you can, say, separate personal life from work)? I do think a substantial amount of people does. Things like Dropbox offer partial solutions when you think beyond photos.

No, the manual syncing of photos is what we want, including iOS shooters, NOT auto sync. Photostream was a nightmare if you got your phone ripped off; it's better now but that kind of auto access turns a lot of people off.

And for pros, no way in the world would I put copywrited, possibly sensitive, photos that belong to someone else in the iCloud Photo Library. I couldn't. And I've learned that leaving info, including photo edits, in any proprietary format vs in standardized photo metadata, is a mistake.

And you'll have to use multiple libraries with Photos. It's an all or nothing commitment right now to a pricey paid subscription with Apple. Nobody but casual users will commit their whole photo library to iCloud.

Today, without Photos, I can easily move stuff from computer to computer, to mobile devices, across platforms, and so on. Even edit in LR on two different platforms, and even on a tablet, and that's without even using Photosmith or LR Mobile, which gives even more options. If Photos worked on my Android device, which I bought because my iPad didn't cut it for storing photos, I would be happier, but that's not gonna happen. Sheesh, the RAW support on iOS still lags, and Apple takes forever to even come up with RAW support for new cameras (over 6 mos after LR with my last camera).

 

[OreoCookie]

No, the manual syncing of photos is what we want, including iOS shooters, NOT auto sync. Photostream was a nightmare if you got your phone ripped off; it's better now but that kind of auto access turns a lot of people off.

I think you meant to say »I« instead of »we«.

And for pros, no way in the world would I put copywrited, possibly sensitive, photos that belong to someone else in the iCloud Photo Library. I couldn't. And I've learned that leaving info, including photo edits, in any proprietary format vs in standardized photo metadata, is a mistake.

Who said that the solution has to be public? There are plenty of private cloud solutions where the data remains in your hands (e. g. my Synology NAS and my Transporter have software which turn them into a private cloud). And if you know your way around Linux, you can install private cloud packages such as ownCloud. Compared to what I want, this is still baby software, though.

And you'll have to use multiple libraries with Photos. It's an all or nothing commitment right now to a pricey paid subscription with Apple. Nobody but casual users will commit their whole photo library to iCloud.

I don't know if it is pricey, I'd consider paying for it if I weren't already paying $15/month for two online backup services (Crashplan and Backblaze). Eventually, you have to make a business model for it, i. e. you need to figure out how to pay for the services component of it all. And since I don't want ads, I don't mind paying something if it is convincing. From that perspective, Adobe is already set to go, they are able to use subscription revenue to both, pay for software development and the services bit. Even if you buy your own hardware and neglect the costs for a fast internet connection, you have to invest something (my NAS cost ~2.5 years worth of Adobe subscription revenue).

 

[colorspace]

Do you remember the "Far Side" cartoon on what people say and dogs hear?

If so, I think I had that moment with this last post....

To insist that it is designed for iPhone users is completely missing the point.... I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.

 

[OreoCookie]

Do you remember the "Far Side" cartoon on what people say and dogs hear?

So you're saying you're the dog?

 

[skaeight]

I view the ability to control what is synced to LR Mobile as a feature not a flaw (but it's literally one click to get a Collection synced). Also my iPhone pictures are automatically syncing back to LR.

I actually prefer this syncing method over everything in the cloud, but even if I didn't, the superior editing features of LR vastly outweigh the ability to sync photos.

But again if you're happy with Photos as it's presented on Apples Previrw page, by all means use it.

 

[OreoCookie]

I view the ability to control what is synced to LR Mobile as a feature not a flaw (but it's literally one click to get a Collection synced). Also my iPhone pictures are automatically syncing back to LR.

That's an excuse for the lack of a feature: of course, if properly implemented, you, the user, should have the choice what will be synced and what will remain private. You could set different defaults on a per-folder basis, for instance, which then sub-folders inherit. You could also think of different settings for different sync targets (e. g. I want to sync all work photos between my MacBook Pro and my iMac at work, sync a few select projects to my work iPad and all private photos between my MacBook Pro and my iPhone). Again, Adobe's syncing options are a sensible first step in the right direction, but they haven't cracked the problem -- and I don't think nobody can in one single swoop. Right now, syncing is tacked on, and to make Lightroom more friendly to multi-device editing with all the problems this entails (e. g. conflict detection and resolution) is not easy.

So even if you prefer to do things the way they work now (which should be an option for sure), you have much more freedom. Personally, one absolute must for any solution is that I want a complete copy of all of my data on my NAS, and that this copy isn't deleted just because I choose to stop using [insert whatever service]. That's why I use two backup services, I don't care if one of them goes belly-up, I'm not putting all of my eggs in one basket. (I also have local backups anyway.)

But again if you're happy with Photos as it's presented on Apples Previrw page, by all means use it.

I'm happy with none of the solutions right now, that's my problem And neither should you! Somebody has to put pressure on the software companies to tackle these issues. It's likely I'll use Photos to keep all of my old edits and such in place, and I will consider new apps but starting a library from scratch.

 

[robgendreau]

I'm happy with none of the solutions right now, that's my problem And neither should you! Somebody has to put pressure on the software companies to tackle these issues. It's likely I'll use Photos to keep all of my old edits and such in place, and I will consider new apps but starting a library from scratch.

I agree! It continues to rankle me that I even have to use a dedicated photo app to find and manage my images. It should be implemented as part of the system (I'd say the Finder but that does a poor job of finding...).

 

[skaeight]

That's an excuse for the lack of a feature: of course, if properly implemented, you, the user, should have the choice what will be synced and what will remain private. You could set different defaults on a per-folder basis, for instance, which then sub-folders inherit. You could also think of different settings for different sync targets (e. g. I want to sync all work photos between my MacBook Pro and my iMac at work, sync a few select projects to my work iPad and all private photos between my MacBook Pro and my iPhone). Again, Adobe's syncing options are a sensible first step in the right direction, but they haven't cracked the problem -- and I don't think nobody can in one single swoop. Right now, syncing is tacked on, and to make Lightroom more friendly to multi-device editing with all the problems this entails (e. g. conflict detection and resolution) is not easy.

There's nothing stopping me from creating collections of all my photos and syncing them. I just don't want or need to do that. Also, you're right Lightroom Mobile is tacked on. They threw in unlimited storage for free with the Photograph CC suite - for $10 / month, which is the same price as 500 GB of storage for apple. So Adobe is giving me a 2 free applications and literally infinitely more bandwidth for the same price.

So even if you prefer to do things the way they work now (which should be an option for sure), you have much more freedom. Personally, one absolute must for any solution is that I want a complete copy of all of my data on my NAS, and that this copy isn't deleted just because I choose to stop using [insert whatever service]. That's why I use two backup services, I don't care if one of them goes belly-up, I'm not putting all of my eggs in one basket. (I also have local backups anyway.)

Lightroom works off of referenced copies of the original RAW / jpg files, so I have complete control over all of my images. All of this is backed up to Time Machine and Crashplan. I've got it under control. If I stop using Lightroom Mobile it will have zero impact on my original files. The same can't be said for Photos if you don't choose to store all your photos locally (if you enable the optimize option).

I'm happy with none of the solutions right now, that's my problem And neither should you! Somebody has to put pressure on the software companies to tackle these issues. It's likely I'll use Photos to keep all of my old edits and such in place, and I will consider new apps but starting a library from scratch.

I'm sorry to hear you're not happy with the options. However, I get to decide whether or not I'm happy with something, and quite frankly I'm happy with Lightroom. Is it perfect? No. I want to see some GPU acceleration and my pipe dream is that they somehow integrate their DAM into the OS somehow (this will likely never happen). But, everything in life is a tradeoff. There is no perfect anything. I spent a little over a month fretting over what I was going to next with my DAM. Since I made my decision and got some edits done with LR with and am confident I'm comfortable with it, I'm now calm, centered, and focused again. I've been able to get back to living my normal life and actually doing the activity that is the reason why I have a DAM - taking pictures.

Just pick something that is the "least bad" for you (even if that's Photos) and move on. You'll feel better. I promise.

 

[OreoCookie]

Lightroom works off of referenced copies of the original RAW / jpg files, so I have complete control over all of my images. All of this is backed up to Time Machine and Crashplan. I've got it under control. If I stop using Lightroom Mobile it will have zero impact on my original files. The same can't be said for Photos if you don't choose to store all your photos locally (if you enable the optimize option).

You always have state in the database, and this is data which isn't – and in many cases cannot be migrated to whatever you're using. The transition away from Aperture isn't my first DAM migration, although this time, there is more state in the database than before. (iView was just a cataloging tool and didn't really have any image editing features to speak of.)

Just pick something that is the "least bad" for you (even if that's Photos) and move on. You'll feel better. I promise.

I think you misunderstand, I'm not arguing because I'm struggling with how to manage the migration, that's already clear. I just wish we could skip the awkward time in the middle and get to the finish line.

 

[skaeight]

You always have state in the database, and this is data which isn't – and in many cases cannot be migrated to whatever you're using. The transition away from Aperture isn't my first DAM migration, although this time, there is more state in the database than before. (iView was just a cataloging tool and didn't really have any image editing features to speak of.)

I think you misunderstand, I'm not arguing because I'm struggling with how to manage the migration, that's already clear. I just wish we could skip the awkward time in the middle and get to the finish line.

Ya I understand what you're getting at. If you decide to go to LR you can have the Aperture Previews exported along with the original files and then stack them so that you can at least view what your adjusted images look like. It sucks to lose the ability to adjust them again without starting over, but they're at least there.

If you do this, I'd recommend first adjusting your previews so they're full resolution, highest quality and then regenerate them. To minimize wasted disk space I actually deleted all previews, created a smart album containing all adjusted images and then generated previews only for the adjusted images.

The thing about LR is that unless something new comes along that is more desirable and you actively choose to migrate on your own terms, it should be the last migration you ever have to make. LR shouldn't ever suffer the same fate Aperture did.

 

[OreoCookie]

The thing about LR is that unless something new comes along that is more desirable and you actively choose to migrate on your own terms, it should be the last migration you ever have to make. LR shouldn't ever suffer the same fate Aperture did.

It's certain that the next transition won't be the last, I don't expect Adobe to keep Lightroom around in 40 years' time, for instance.

 

[maflynn]

It's certain that the next transition won't be the last, I don't expect Adobe to keep Lightroom around in 40 years' time, for instance.

By the same token, look how long photoshop has been around. I think Adobe's track record is a lot more stable then Apple's. I really don't envision lightroom going away in the near or far future. I don't know what will be happening in 40 years but at that point, I'll probably not care since I'll be too old any ways

 

[OreoCookie]

By the same token, look how long photoshop has been around. I think Adobe's track record is a lot more stable then Apple's. I really don't envision lightroom going away in the near or far future. I don't know what will be happening in 40 years but at that point, I'll probably not care since I'll be too old any ways

You're right that, and even if Lightroom goes away, it doesn't mean that there isn't an orderly transition to whatever is next. But I just caution against saying that this is the last transition. I've been through quite a few already in my active computing life.

 

[maflynn]

Agreed, you can never say never in that sense. There will be better tools and who knows where Adobe will be in 10, 15, 20 years.

 

[skaeight]

In 40 years we'll all be using quantum hover board computers.

 

[OreoCookie]

You're right that, and even if Lightroom goes away, it doesn't mean that there isn't an orderly transition to whatever is next. But I just caution against saying that this is the last transition. I've been through quite a few already in my active computing life.

Who knows where they'll be in 5 years. The Affinity guys have released very solid pieces of software lately, so maybe we are using something else. Also Pixelmator is getting a more and more serious piece of software, covering the use cases of more and more people.

 

[skaeight]

Who knows where they'll be in 5 years. The Affinity guys have released very solid pieces of software lately, so maybe we are using something else. Also Pixelmator is getting a more and more serious piece of software, covering the use cases of more and more people.

One thing I've thought about is that what if someone built a pro level DAM equivalent of Pixelmator. All of the core imaging stuff is all there ready to be used (which is why affinity and Pixelmator exist). There may be a market there for that kind of application. I would certainly at least give it a look.

 

[robgendreau]

Who knows where they'll be in 5 years. The Affinity guys have released very solid pieces of software lately, so maybe we are using something else. Also Pixelmator is getting a more and more serious piece of software, covering the use cases of more and more people.

But those are just editors. I haven't seen anyone jump into the DAM field lately.

That being said, if you write metadata to files, and if you regularly export the images you adjust, you can limit the loss of info if you move to another DAM solution. I once thought it would be horrible if I lost saved adjustments, but not so much. I had the exported TIFFs, of course, but what I hadn't factored in was that editing tools keep improving, so even if I had an adjustment saved in Aperture I didn't care, cuz with say DxO it was better to start over anyway.

BTW, the storage for CC Photography bundle only includes unlimited storage for files synched via LR Mobile, right? and those are smart previews? Or have I got that wrong?

 

[skaeight]

BTW, the storage for CC Photography bundle only includes unlimited storage for files synched via LR Mobile, right? and those are smart previews? Or have I got that wrong?

That is correct. It's just to get images too and from the mobile apps, not between different installs of the desktop app. I'm using Bittorrent sync to sync my Lightroom catalog between machines.

 

[FWRLCK]

But those are just editors. I haven't seen anyone jump into the DAM field lately.

That being said, if you write metadata to files, and if you regularly export the images you adjust, you can limit the loss of info if you move to another DAM solution. I once thought it would be horrible if I lost saved adjustments, but not so much. I had the exported TIFFs, of course, but what I hadn't factored in was that editing tools keep improving, so even if I had an adjustment saved in Aperture I didn't care, cuz with say DxO it was better to start over anyway.

BTW, the storage for CC Photography bundle only includes unlimited storage for files synched via LR Mobile, right? and those are smart previews? Or have I got that wrong?

Yeah, so long as I don't lose metadata or the output, I don't really care too much about losing adjustment layers. I rarely go back and modify adjustments long after the fact and, if I do, I usually just start a new version.

 

[jms969]

One thing I've thought about is that what if someone built a pro level DAM equivalent of Pixelmator. All of the core imaging stuff is all there ready to be used (which is why affinity and Pixelmator exist). There may be a market there for that kind of application. I would certainly at least give it a look.

There are quite a number of folks that do image manipulation, I am not sure why they haven't jumped into the DAM fray...