Life After Aperture - What are you using now?

[robgendreau]

Wish the poll allowed more than one choice.

I began moving away from Aperture to LR a couple of years ago cuz I disliked Aperture's interface and file management for referenced files; it wasn't too hard to transition over. You can reference files in both applications, and just export your adjusted photos. And Apple took/takes forever to get new RAW support.

But I've come to recognize that what works for people depends on whether they are sort of one-and-done photo editors, or keep returning over and over to the same photo. The former seem to edit an image and export, often for use by others. The latter seem to make more versions, for different uses, and store the versions in the DAM. The one-and-dones have many more options; Photo Mechanic for instance is great for this (makes sense given it's photojournalism chops). LR/Aperture seems more often to be used by individuals, and by those who store tons of edits without exporting.

So for a bunch of people, maybe a PIE (parametric photo editor, like LR) isn't even needed, and that the images can be managed with either a cataloguer or a browser. PM sorta falls into that category.

 

[fcortese]

I was one of those who was hanging on and waiting in hope that Photos would at least be a very good beginning towards a viable replacement for Aperture. My plan was to keep using Aperture and wait for Photos 2.0 to be released and only bail after P 20 failed to show any real juice for my needs and when the next OS X came out. But I decided to start using Lr to see what it was like and w/i a week came the news generated from the release of Photos beta and I decided right there and then to go all in with Lr. I am really enjoying its powerful tools and am still on the front end of the learning curve but the adjustment has not been bad or painful. I can use my NIK software w/o any issues. Apple is showing its hand at where it is headed with regards to photography and that is iPhone/consumer users which make up such a huge portion of their client base. I can't blame them. That's why they're the richest corporation in the world. Time to move on, IMO. Lr suits my needs and I'm getting more comfortable with it as the days progress.

 

[simonsi]

Aperture
Still works, why go through hours of work now.

I was of a similar view. Until I saw Capture 1's RAW processing was better than Aperture and there is the ability to do without the plugins I currently use so less time spent round-tripping. Those benefits caused me to change now rather than wait, indeed my transition workflow involves running all my existing RAW files through Capture 1 to gain the benefit.

 

[The Bad Guy]

Stopped using Aperture years ago and have been using Lightroom since version three.

Have also been laughing at you Aperture apologists / advocates since then. The last month of reading on here has been hilarious to me.

Quite honestly though, Lightroom is just a DAM / VERY basic editor to me these days. Being predominately a portrait photographer…it's gotta be Photoshop. Nothing comes close.

 

[MiniD3]

The Poll says it all I guess!

I have been through the wringer with image processing and catalogs,
Started with Nikon software, ViewNX and CaptureNX and was very pleased with the results
Then Nikon threw out the baby with the bathwater, so, it was time to do 2 things,
The PC died, talked to you guys a lot then pulled the trigger on a maxed out
iMac and got Aperture, was a very happy camper, lot of re-edits over many months, but got there and then Apple threw out the second offspring with the water as well, you guessed it! Now LR and PS CC

How am I travelling?
Should have moved a long time ago! find I'm now getting better results with LR
catalog works a treat and I like the UI very much, integrates with LR and plug-ins with a couple of clicks
Love it!

Cons
I'm not computer savvy and don't understand how the catalog back-up really
works, for example, it was suggested I delete the back-ups to save space, did that and lost a 8000+ image catalog, oops!
broke into a cold sweat!
I clicked on to time machine and followed the prompts, took 12 mins to recover!

I will make another post re "which back-up files are safe to delete"
Not touching them till I know what to do this time around

This is not really a con I guess, just a loose nut behind the keyboard

A whole lot better than Aperture's vaults, they used to disappear now and again for reasons I'll never know!
........Gary

 

[robgendreau]

I have been through the wringer with image processing and catalogs,
Started with Nikon software, ViewNX and CaptureNX and was very pleased with the results
Then Nikon threw out the baby with the bathwater, so, it was time to do 2 things,
The PC died, talked to you guys a lot then pulled the trigger on a maxed out
iMac and got Aperture, was a very happy camper, lot of re-edits over many months, but got there and then Apple threw out the second offspring with the water as well, you guessed it! Now LR and PS CC

How am I travelling?
Should have moved a long time ago! find I'm now getting better results with LR
catalog works a treat and I like the UI very much, integrates with LR and plug-ins with a couple of clicks
Love it!

Cons
I'm not computer savvy and don't understand how the catalog back-up really
works, for example, it was suggested I delete the back-ups to save space, did that and lost a 8000+ image catalog, oops!
broke into a cold sweat!
I clicked on to time machine and followed the prompts, took 12 mins to recover!

I will make another post re "which back-up files are safe to delete"
Not touching them till I know what to do this time around

This is not really a con I guess, just a loose nut behind the keyboard

A whole lot better than Aperture's vaults, they used to disappear now and again for reasons I'll never know!
........Gary

Hmm. Sounds like you deleted more than a backup. The LR catalog does NOT contain your photos. Those are stored separately in the Finder folders where you copied or added them or whatever. The catalog is just info about the photos, metadata, and such. Still important, but deleted a backup of the CATALOG shouldn't ever remove your photos.

See here: https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/help/back-catalog.html

 

[kelub]

Apple is showing its hand at where it is headed with regards to photography and that is iPhone/consumer users which make up such a huge portion of their client base.

I've seen this a bunch... but I think there's a fundamental misconception about what Photos is going to be to OSX. It's going to function very similarly to how Photos functions in iOS. It's mostly a storage repository for the photos, with very basic editing functionality built-in (crop, red-eye, brightness, contrast, etc). When you use a photo app on your iPhone/iPad, it looks to the Photos storage location to find the photo. Some apps allow you to store images within the app, but most want you to save your edited image back to Photos once you're done.

This is how I believe Photos will work. At some point, Lr/C1/PS/whatever will be programmed to look in Photos for your images and to use it as the DAM. Instead of Lr looking at files sitting loosely in finder, it'll look at the Photos database. Until then, you'll likely make your edits in Lr/whatever and then if you want to synchronize the end result, export the final image and import it into Photos, and let it keep up with the images you'd want to share/access most frequently.

I think this concept of "iPhoto -> Photos" or "Aperture -> Photos" is missing the point of what Apple is doing. Yes, they're getting out of the "photography software" business, but they're not trying to replace either of those apps with another app. Photos will be given the basic abilities of iPhoto, but it's meant to be a DAM that synchronizes your photo storage across all devices.

Anyway, it just seems that there's a lot of seppuku over Photos without fully understanding what its purpose is meant to be: not a new DAM + robust photo editor, but simply a DAM with basic editing purposes that synchronizes across devices via iCloud.

 

[maflynn]

I was of a similar view. Until I saw Capture 1's RAW processing was better than Aperture and there is the ability to do without the plugins I currently use so less time spent round-tripping. Those benefits caused me to change now rather than wait, indeed my transition workflow involves running all my existing RAW files through Capture 1 to gain the benefit.

You guys who transitioned over to C1 keep giving me second thoughts on LR. I like LR, and I don't knock it, but there were aspects of C1 that pushed me away. The RAW processing however is what keeps bringing me back

 

[MiniD3]

Hmm. Sounds like you deleted more than a backup. The LR catalog does NOT contain your photos. Those are stored separately in the Finder folders where you copied or added them or whatever. The catalog is just info about the photos, metadata, and such. Still important, but deleted a backup of the CATALOG shouldn't ever remove your photos.

See here: https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/help/back-catalog.html

Sorry, my bad explanation, it was the catalog of 8000+ image that was gone,
I have the images on an external drive and use CCC to copy them to a 2nd drive
Thank you for the head-up on the link
I think I have the catalog working OK now, just my custom presets disappeared all good now
.......Gary

 

[simonsi]

You guys who transitioned over to C1 keep giving me second thoughts on LR. I like LR, and I don't knock it, but there were aspects of C1 that pushed me away. The RAW processing however is what keeps bringing me back

For me the C1/LR difference is just like Nikon vs Canon to me, its one of ergonomics and handling primarily but that alone means more enjoyable workflow and probably better results in my hands.

 

[talmy]

In 2013 and earlier I used Aperture "in the field", Lr/Ps/Nik at home. But a year ago I switched to pure Aperture (+Nik), shall we say going the wrong direction?

ACR and Bridge don't work with my new D810, so I'd have to get a CC subscription to go back. I've looked at Lightroom and it is cumbersome and slow but since it is "free" after paying my subscription I might as well go with it.

I'll make my move this summer.

I'll have to use Photos for integration with my iPhone and other apps (FCPX, Mail, and Pages primarily). I'm also expecting the Photos library will be readable from Plex.

These aren't good times.

 

[anewman143]

I shoot in RAW for no other reason that I like having the most data available for editing. May not use it, but when I need it, it's there.

But I've got what is hopefully not "too" stupid a question - lots of opinions about why one piece of software is a "much better" RAW processor - I understood RAW as just that...raw data, unprocessed...right off the sensor. What is it, then, that makes one piece of software a better processor of RAW data? I always thought I import the RAW data, and can then do the work that I want to do on it...so what "processing" is happening to the RAW data before I start working on it?

Does that make sense? I don't mean to sound thick...and maybe it's just a terminology issue...but I don't think I get the distinction...

HELP!

 

[kenoh]

Photography CC, mainly Lr.

+1 here.

 

[talmy]

But I've got what is hopefully not "too" stupid a question - lots of opinions about why one piece of software is a "much better" RAW processor - I understood RAW as just that...raw data, unprocessed...right off the sensor. What is it, then, that makes one piece of software a better processor of RAW data? I always thought I import the RAW data, and can then do the work that I want to do on it...so what "processing" is happening to the RAW data before I start working on it?

Short answer: RAW data is straight from the sensor with separate red, green, and blue pixels and has to be processed into the array of full spectrum color pixels that can be viewed/edited/printed.

Long answer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format

 

[robgendreau]

I shoot in RAW for no other reason that I like having the most data available for editing. May not use it, but when I need it, it's there.

But I've got what is hopefully not "too" stupid a question - lots of opinions about why one piece of software is a "much better" RAW processor - I understood RAW as just that...raw data, unprocessed...right off the sensor. What is it, then, that makes one piece of software a better processor of RAW data? I always thought I import the RAW data, and can then do the work that I want to do on it...so what "processing" is happening to the RAW data before I start working on it?

Does that make sense? I don't mean to sound thick...and maybe it's just a terminology issue...but I don't think I get the distinction...

HELP!

Not a stupid question. I think photo people can't argue about the best films anymore so they need to argue about RAW instead....

RAW is raw, but turning that data into an image, rendering it, requires certain algorithms. Your camera software has the manufacturer's sauce. You may or may not like that default rendering. Each RAW processor then essentially reverse engineers the proprietary RAW data, applies their own secret sauce, and comes up with their own rendering. It's not just a matter of demosaicing the pixel data, but there are color issues, and in the case of my camera even lens corrections.

All RAW converters also allow what sound like standard processes, like highlight recovery, etc, but again since they each start with different algorithms even that can be different. See here: http://www.nomadlens.com/raw-converters-comparison

Once the RAW processor does its rendering, then you have an image you can start pixel editing. As you would with a TIFF.

There is also a bit of controversy over when to use a RAW processor to do something vs doing the same thing later with an image editor, like conversion to B&W. Generally, lots of folks will say that converting or other adjustments that are actually done at the RAW rendering stage are preferable. But again not all algorithms are the same, and somebody might actually get a better result rendering and converting to TIFF and then doing an adjustment or conversion. The line between RAW processing and pixel editing can sort of blur, but for things like recovering hightlights or shadows generally folks prefer working on the RAW. Once that's made into TIFF it's hard to do much with that.

 

[anewman143]

OK - that helps a lot. Makes much more sense now. Sounds, at the end, like a very subjective thing anyway...will keep plugging away, learning as I go!

 

[skaeight]

This is how I believe Photos will work. At some point, Lr/C1/PS/whatever will be programmed to look in Photos for your images and to use it as the DAM. Instead of Lr looking at files sitting loosely in finder, it'll look at the Photos database. Until then, you'll likely make your edits in Lr/whatever and then if you want to synchronize the end result, export the final image and import it into Photos, and let it keep up with the images you'd want to share/access most frequently.

This would be awesome. It would literally be the best of both worlds if I could use LR to edit photos stored in Apple's DAM.

 

[OreoCookie]

This would be awesome. It would literally be the best of both worlds if I could use LR to edit photos stored in Apple's DAM.

But shouldn't that work right now? I reckon that the Photos library would be accessible from any Open/Save dialog just like my Aperture libraries are. Can somebody check on that? But of course, better integration would be nice, and if iOS is any indication we should get that on OS X as well. It'd be nice if there were other »front ends« to the Photos library as well, a DAM on top of Photos. Hey, a man can dream

 

[talmy]

But shouldn't that work right now? I reckon that the Photos library would be accessible from any Open/Save dialog just like my Aperture libraries are. Can somebody check on that?

Yes, the Photos library appears along with the iPhoto and Aperture libraries.

 

[OreoCookie]

Yes, the Photos library appears along with the iPhoto and Aperture libraries.

Great, thanks.

 

[skaeight]

But shouldn't that work right now? I reckon that the Photos library would be accessible from any Open/Save dialog just like my Aperture libraries are. Can somebody check on that? But of course, better integration would be nice, and if iOS is any indication we should get that on OS X as well. It'd be nice if there were other »front ends« to the Photos library as well, a DAM on top of Photos. Hey, a man can dream

No it doesn't, for two reasons:
- Lightroom doesn't use the OS X Open / Save dialogue box - you have to import photos into lightroom to be able to work with them, using their import tool
- You have to import photos to work with them. They have to be part of the LR catalog

Maybe you misunderstood what I meant. What I would like is for Lightroom to be able to work off of the Photos DAM - all photos and edit data are stored in Photos, but Lightroom provides all of the advanced non-destructive editing. This would solve the problem of needing to export photos from Lightroom to be able to use them with other applications (which honestly after having using LR full-time for coming up on a month is becoming less of a problem for me - I'm getting used to this). It would also allow me use iCloud sharing (again without having to export) and it would eliminate duplicates of my files.

I realize this unlikely to ever happen because of the fact that LR is cross platform, but I can dream, right?

 

[glenthompson]

Aperture is still working fine for me. No reason to switch until it won't work on an OS X revision or Photos does what I want. N

 

[maflynn]

Aperture is still working fine for me. No reason to switch until it won't work on an OS X revision or Photos does what I want. N

Your rolling the dice on two things, first if it suddenly stops working, you'll be in a mad scramble to fins a replacement or trying to roll back an update. Secondly you'll be that much more behind the curve in moving even more images over to its replacement.

While I don't knock anyone from using the app, there are risks, whether they are short term or long term risks are anyone's guess but they are there.

For me, as I've stated before, the hand writing was on the wall for Aperture, I might as well make an orderly transition over now rather then later when I may need some functionality immediately and the app failed.

 

[JDDavis]

Aperture is still working fine for me. No reason to switch until it won't work on an OS X revision or Photos does what I want. N

Aperture is working fine for me as well, but....

Here's what I think it boils down to after trying out different options.

If you mainly do simple, image wide adjustments (exposure, contrast, saturation, convert to B&W, use a filter, etc...) then stick with Aperture and wait for Photos.

If you want to control different parts of your image separately (maybe like me you are using NIK and their "control points" to do that) then it's time to move on to a new piece of software.

In my highly unprofessional opinion there are really only two choices out there if you want a single piece of software to do your DAM, do a good job at RAW conversion, and to be able to locally edit distinct aspects of your image (masks / layers)....Capture One Pro and Lightroom / PS.

If I didn't want that level of control and only applied universal edits to images I'd probably wait for Photos.

 

[OreoCookie]

No it doesn't, for two reasons:
- Lightroom doesn't use the OS X Open / Save dialogue box - you have to import photos into lightroom to be able to work with them, using their import tool
- You have to import photos to work with them. They have to be part of the LR catalog

I think you misunderstand what I was trying to say: I said that right now with Aperture and iPhoto, and later with Photos, you can access the library via Open/Save, and in the future, you could get more sophisticated integration. That is obviously only interesting for apps which work according to the document model (e. g. Photoshop) rather than the shoe box model (e. g. Lightroom). Lightroom would layer another DAM on top of that.

Besides, it sounds to me as if you want something like a Photoshop Extension rather than Lightroom: you want Adobe's editing tools while enjoying the advantages of the integration Photos offers. I'd find an app intriguing which would replace Photos as an interface to the library –*that's not Lightroom and never will be, it uses its own database.