Advice on Aperture alternative

[right mind]

I'm another long time aperture user, about 83,000 managed photo's or about 600GBs. Here's my aperture story and what I have done over the last two years to get away from aperture

At the end of 2017 I drew a line in the sand and decided to quit using aperture and use only Photo's to store and process all new imported images. I will admit there were some images that found their way to aperture for additional processing, I couldn't help it. My logic for this decision was to force myself to find a new way to organize and process my photo's. I have a tendency to procrastinate.

In December 2018 I bought On One Photo Raw 2019 and have decided to give it a try. It was inexpensive during the Christmas deal. I looked at many editors and PR 2019 appealed to me more then the rest. It looked more "aperture like" then the others. I'm still waiting to use Photos Raw 2019 as I just purchased a new iMac. My old dual core iMac just met the minimum resources requirement for PR 2019 and couldn't update to Sierra so a new iMac was in order.

For photo managment, aperture was excellent using a managed library. Vault was another great feature built into a managed aperture library. It was just a very well thought out way to keep your images organized in a totally logical way. I doubt we will ever see that again within any raw processor. And even if you did, could you ever trust another editor to keep your library again?

At this point I think I will always keep a referenced library so an aperture event won't happen again.
In aperture, I did a chronological/Project name library. Year/Month/Project name. That worked perfect for my library.
I'm planing on a referenced library organized the same way I had it in aperture. Preferably on an external ssd with usb3.

For starters, to move all my images from aperture I bought "Aperture Exporter". It's an excellent way export all your photos from aperture to where ever you choose and keep you aperture library in order. It move's all your unedited raw files and optional jpeg copy with the edits "baked in", including all the metadata. That way you have a finished copy of each edited photo. That can add up to hundreds of hours you've spent editing your photo's.
Highly recommended!!

Will update as things progress.

Good luck with the tough choice. Hopes this helps.

 

[harriska2]

I stumbled across the ability to do a referenced library in Photos. My life has become sooooo much better. I'm coming from Windows 7 with a few thousand pictures in dated folders. I just set Photos to import the reference and I can create Albums to my heart's content. That was way too cool. I use Affinity to edit, although I'm having problems keeping the resolution at 600x600 in Affinity, when editing a TIFF then exporting it changes it to 96x96.

 

[OreoCookie]

Whether or not you use a referenced library, switching DAMs means you are losing almost all of the significant information: RAW converter settings, versions, albums, etc. All of this is contained in the DAM's database and either does not transfer at all or in the best case scenario partially transfers.

 

[MCAsan]

Indeed. Each editing app is a walled garden with its own raw converters, adjustments with proprietary formula/math, different effects (if any)....etc. Some companies such as On1 are trying to migration tools from Lr because Lr has such huge marketshare. Adobe did one to move from Aperture to Lr. But at this very late time in the Aperture lifecycle, I can not image vendors caring much about migration tools from Aperture.

 

[BJMRamage]

Yeah, even though it stinks to move DAMs at the same time, if you are already in one that is shut down (Aperture) you need to move on at some point and will have to go through that hurdle.


That's what pains me about moving on now...deciding which program to invest time in that will work as a DAM, and be able to edit nicely, and live on. Lightroom may be the only "real" option but not loving the lease software idea.

 

[harriska2]

I just bought Luminar 3 and am trying to use it without its DAM system. I need their quick filters that work well with my old grainy scanned photos. But it sure wants to take over your file system. I can understand the appeal of nondestructiveness but in my case I can’t seem to get away from it.

 

[MCAsan]

Non destructiveness simply means the raw file is untouched. The edits and filters applied are done so when the raw data is interpreted for the screen or when an export is created as a TIF, jpg...etc.

It kind of like the difference in interpreted code vs compiled code. Stick with interpreted code whenever possible.

 

[BJMRamage]

Non destructiveness simply means the raw file is untouched. The edits and filters applied are done so when the raw data is interpreted for the screen or when an export is created as a TIF, jpg...etc.

It kind of like the difference in interpreted code vs compiled code. Stick with interpreted code whenever possible.

isn't by 'nature' the RAW file always non-destructive since it is just the info and not the 'image' and any adjustments are like an extension to it? [i could be totally wrong here...also now trying to think of how Photos works with RAW and extensions – i wish Aperture just grew and stayed alive sometimes]

but the non-destructive ability works well with TIFFs and JPGs where the adjustments are just "layers" above the image to make the visual adjustments? the idea being any "image" file you bring in is not being physically affected UNTIL saving/Exporting to an image format. Non-destructive is like using Smart Objects in Photoshop maybe.

 

[harriska2]

Non destructiveness simply means the raw file is untouched. The edits and filters applied are done so when the raw data is interpreted for the screen or when an export is created as a TIF, jpg...etc.

It kind of like the difference in interpreted code vs compiled code. Stick with interpreted code whenever possible.

I open TIFs that have 2-8 images included because that is how I scanned my old pictures. When I go to crop a single image out, it lets me crop but I have to undo a gazillion changes to go back to the original so that I can crop out another image. Because I export the crop, it updates the stupid file so I can't go back to the original. That is why I have to copy the TIF files to a Luminar folder, edit/export, then delete it. Which is a PITA. With affinity, I can edit and not save - and wha-la, I can move on without creating extra files or having the original changed within Affinity. The way they have it set up I can't use it as a stand alone without keeping it away from everything else. I have to copy files into a faraday cage and delete when I'm done.

 

[OreoCookie]

@harriska2
That doesn't sound good. In fact, those are problems that Aperture and Lightroom solved when they were released and a huge reason why they took over the market from pieces of software like iView Media Pro. It is inconceivable that they thought they could release a DAM without that functionality in 2019.

Indeed. Each editing app is a walled garden with its own raw converters, adjustments with proprietary formula/math, different effects (if any)....etc. Some companies such as On1 are trying to migration tools from Lr because Lr has such huge marketshare. Adobe did one to move from Aperture to Lr. But at this very late time in the Aperture lifecycle, I can not image vendors caring much about migration tools from Aperture.

Yup. And these migration tools work to some degree, but the process is always lossy. Most of the value that has been accrued over time is in the database. Versions, carefully sorted stacks, etc. You just have no choice but being ok with losing that. The actual files contain only a tiny fraction of that information.

 

[robgendreau]

I mitigated much of the frustration I had with moving by making use of photo metadata. Saved me a lot of headaches. For example any album or collection structure can be replicated with hierarchical keywords. Stacks were pretty easy since mine were all easy to replicate in Lr since it does auto stacking by time. Virtual copies (can't remember what Aperture called those) were tougher, but that problem was essentially the larger one of trying to replicate and transfer the image adjustments themselves (the virtual copies are just different sets of adjusting parameters, really). And for those, pretty much the only solution for moving from anything to anything is to export a final TIFF.

But hey, it's still a lot easier than pulling out a negative from years ago, but not being able to find the print. And now having to print again without remembering how the heck you got a good result the first time you did it (and in all honesty, I remember not getting consistent prints from week to week...my instructor ragged on us to buy notebooks and take notes, but we usually forgot.

And as others have noted, starting over with the better tools we have available to us now isn't so bad...unless I were in biz and got an order to reproduce prints from say an event years ago, since even printing a TIFF saved out of Aperture might be different now.

 

[harriska2]

I am starting to make my peace with Luminar 3. By using “Open in Quick Edit” it does seem to leave the original file alone, although I can’t save what edits were made in a seperate file, that’s OK with me. When I crop one of several images out of the file I simply reposition the crop marker to the next image on the page (it’s how I scanned my images years ago). I do adjustments then an export to jpg then move on. Pretty slick actually. I can then delete their forced library every so often and start fresh. Not a pretty workflow but there it is. There are some oddities in Luminar 3 such as your crop tool type always defaults to a weird selection that forces centering and a specific aspect ratio. It also disappears your current color, degrain, etc filter adjustments after erasing so I just erase last and only if I really think it is necessary.

 

[right mind]

After years of contemplation, research and organizing a plan to leave aperture for good, I've done it. With an aperture library of 83,000 photo's it was no easy task to stay organized in moving to another raw processor.

I did learn a lot about how library's work with processors during my experience and I can share some things I've learned along the way.

First, I only work with raw files. I just don't see how anyone who takes photography seriously could to so much trouble to buy, nice camera's, lens's, photo editing software and all the other crap that goes along with photography, not get the most they can out of the RAW files that are available to them.
I know some instances jpeg makes more sense such as a photo journalist that has deadlines to meet. But for most other instances, why not give yourself more room for error? Shoot raw when ever you can.

I made the choice after leaving aperture in December 2017 to use photo's untilI found a raw processor that could be a replacement for aperture.
For me I chose On 1 Photo Raw 2019. It has a lot more tools than aperture offered. It isn't as well thought out and intuitive as aperture so there is a feeling out process to get used to it. I'm thinking around a year to get a workflow that you can settle into and have some decent command of all the tools available to you.

Forget trying to import your old aperture files into any new photo processor. Do your self a huge favor and buy Aperture Exporter.
You can move your aperture library to another place on your hard drive or an external hard drive or anywhere you choose.
After Aperture Exporter finishes with your library you can have access to your aperture photo's with any new processor or even better just keep them in their separate place and start a new post-aperture library to use with your new processor.

Aperture Exporter does keep your aperture library intact. All your folders will stay just the way you have them set up now.
It will preserve all your metadata.

I ran Aperture Exporter to an external raid 1 enclosure with two 1TB HDDs.

I just bought a new iMac that came with Mojave 10.14.2 and aperture still functions perfectly. I've heard differently elsewhere but I can verify that aperture still works. Hearing that aperture would no longer work with Mojave is why I decided to move all aperture library before I transferred all my files to my new mac via time-machine.

I installed On1 2019 and have spent a couple of days working some new photo's with it trying to develop a workflow. It's gonna take some getting used to.

So in conclusion, I was facing the fact just like you that I have to find an aperture alternative. I did after carefully laying out a road map to avoid any disasters.

I don't ever believe I'll be as comfortable with any new replacement as much as I was with aperture but that's just how well designed aperture was.
I feel fortunate that I was able to use aperture as long as I did. It definitely raised the bar for processing my photo's, and I learned a lot that I can use to build on in the future.

 

[AZhappyjack]

Just saw an article about Luminar... has anyone tried it? Curious... $69 for a perpetual license.

https://skylum.com/luminar

 

[BJMRamage]

Just saw an article about Luminar... has anyone tried it? Curious... $69 for a perpetual license.

https://skylum.com/luminar

I think I saw that article pop-up this morning too.
I've used the previous version of Luminar. the current (as some users say) seems a bit buggy.

I purchased Luminar and PhotoRAW and still not sure where to end up. or use both as PHOTOS extensions.


I figured (again, as others have said) the less than $100 price on a few of these means you can play a little to try them out. I wish these had the ability to manage video (even if no real editing but to have alongside photos of the same subject). and Perpetual is true...just have yearly updates - so almost like a yearly subscription if you want to stay current.

 

[harriska2]

I think I saw that article pop-up this morning too.
I've used the previous version of Luminar. the current (as some users say) seems a bit buggy.

I purchased Luminar and PhotoRAW and still not sure where to end up. or use both as PHOTOS extensions.


I figured (again, as others have said) the less than $100 price on a few of these means you can play a little to try them out. I wish these had the ability to manage video (even if no real editing but to have alongside photos of the same subject). and Perpetual is true...just have yearly updates - so almost like a yearly subscription if you want to stay current.

If new versions of Lumin require repurchase you might want to hold off buying. It is buggy, especially the library, which I refuse to use.

 

[Ledgem]

Just saw an article about Luminar... has anyone tried it? Curious... $69 for a perpetual license.

https://skylum.com/luminar

I have it. I bought it when they were still promising to come out with a digital asset management function, and my intention was to use it to replace Aperture. Whether in use as a plugin to Photos or in its stand-alone form, I couldn't really get on with it.

It's ambitious software, supposedly allowing you to dive into editing with options to go even deeper as you learn the program. And as far as setting presets and choosing strengths based on that, they certainly hit their mark with making it easy to use. Beyond that, though, I found it difficult to get into. There are a lot of options, but for me it was too many. Furthermore, some functions seemed unnecessarily rough around the edges. For example, attempting to straighten a photo: virtually every software I've used for this purpose automatically crops the photo after the straightening is completed, but Luminar didn't. I had to manually crop after straightening. That was about a year ago, so maybe they've fixed that aspect... but it was really surprising to me, considering that everything else looked like it had a lot of polish.

I believe I'm allowed to get the free update to the latest, but I haven't bothered. During holiday sales I bought into Capture One, which I had often seen listed alongside Lightroom as an Aperture alternative. Capture One is still lacking a lot of features from its digital asset management aspect that Aperture had (things like facial recognition and a map for geotagged photos, or the ability to manually geotag), but it seems to have everything else. And while its editing capabilities are more advanced than Aperture, and reviews online remark on a steep learning curve, I feel that it has been much more accessible for making the types of edits that I was doing in Aperture (and even better, actually).

Long story short, I don't think I'll use Luminar again. It still has potential, because I have Aurora (HDR software from Skylum that I do like) and I also have the suite of individual photography editing programs that are also from Skylum (which I found useful); if Luminar could have tied them all together somehow, it would have probably motivated me to stick with it. Otherwise, I'm happy with my choice of Capture One. Could have saved myself $60 (the cost of Luminar at the time) if I had just bitten the bullet and not been afraid of spending that much money in one go, though...

 

[compasiune11]

Did you try Capture ONE PRO?

 

[Alwis]

I switched from Aperture to Capture One. In short: The RAW processing is excellent, but compared to Aperture, it lacks in the DAM part. Some functions I used to use are missing (e.g. handling of RAW/JPG pairs, stacking) but my main complain is the speec with large libraries, Aperture was much better with his.

 

[r.harris1]

I switched from Aperture to Capture One. In short: The RAW processing is excellent, but compared to Aperture, it lacks in the DAM part. Some functions I used to use are missing (e.g. handling of RAW/JPG pairs, stacking) but my main complain is the speec with large libraries, Aperture was much better with his.

Yeah - you have to learn to love Sessions in C1 as these tend to be much faster. Most of what I do is project based so sessions work well, but for the single large catalog approach, it's not optimal.

 

[RednBlue]

I think I saw that article pop-up this morning too.
I've used the previous version of Luminar. the current (as some users say) seems a bit buggy.

I purchased Luminar and PhotoRAW and still not sure where to end up or use both as PHOTOS extensions.

That's what I've ended up doing...I think I've tried most alternatives at some time and spent a fair bit of money in the process, and they each have some difference and some detail advantages over each other; meanwhile, it seems to me, Photos has slowly but surely improved to the extent that in 95% of cases it does everything I need very well, and for the other 5% it is purely for self-amazement that I attempt to attain perfection - and no-one else would notice any difference anyway.

 

[BJMRamage]

That's what I've ended up doing...I think I've tried most alternatives at some time and spent a fair bit of money in the process, and they each have some difference and some detail advantages over each other; meanwhile, it seems to me, Photos has slowly but surely improved to the extent that in 95% of cases it does everything I need very well, and for the other 5% it is purely for self-amazement that I attempt to attain perfection - and no-one else would notice any difference anyway.

One thing that is bugging me about the Photos and Extension strategy is there have been times when I found a good Edit-build (post-processing) and I then take that and copy over to other photos...this is within Aperture. I fear there is no easy way to do that in Photos or with Extensions. It seems it is more on the DAM side with editing where this can be done.

 

[v3rlon]

Just saw an article about Luminar... has anyone tried it? Curious... $69 for a perpetual license.

https://skylum.com/luminar

For a DAM, I would not get Luminar (and I have the latest version). Finder is better. No keywords - seriously.
As a RAW processor, Luminar is pretty good.

By all means, run the trial and make your own opinion.

I am down to on1, Capture1, or sticking with Photos and editing in whatever I need to.

 

[right mind]

I've been using On1 since the beginning of the year. Im using it as a standalone to keep things simple.
I used Aperture for 9 years then used photo's during 2018 to get away from depending on aperture.
Using El Capitan OS which I was limited to because my 08 iMac couldn't be updated any farther, photo's left a lot to be desired coming from aperture. It is much better with mojave.
Being able to make local adjustments with the brush tools is probably the biggest loss going from aperture to photos.
BJMR, it is possible to copy adjustments on a photo and paste them onto another photo.
If your mac is capable of running mojave you will find that photo's has more options than with prior OS.
Photo's is probably everything a casual shooter needs. Beyond that you need to look elsewhere.

 

[mtbdudex]

Well this sucks for those using the adobe stuff

Fwiw I’m still using Aperture for dslr downloads, I use photos for iPhone downloads