Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

skaeight

macrumors regular
Jan 7, 2009
212
3
It's probably the most powerful photo editing for iOS right now. An incredible app which I think has completely changed the way I edit my photographs. Considering getting myself an iPad Air 2 for the extra processing power and RAM because VSCO keeps crashing during editing and exporting, on my iPad Air. Pretty sure it's down to CPU and RAM restrictions.

Are you editing RAW images? I ran into that basically across the board when trying to edit RAWs on the iPad (pixelmator, photos, VSCO, etc.)?

I have a Retina Mini which actually is slightly slower than the Air and I don't have any trouble when editing jpgs. The extra RAM of the Air 2 may help enable RAW editing though.
 

576316

macrumors 601
May 19, 2011
4,056
2,556
Are you editing RAW images? I ran into that basically across the board when trying to edit RAWs on the iPad (pixelmator, photos, VSCO, etc.)?

I have a Retina Mini which actually is slightly slower than the Air and I don't have any trouble when editing jpgs. The extra RAM of the Air 2 may help enable RAW editing though.

Yeah, RAW files transfered to Photos from my MacBook Pro - I plan to purchase the Lightning to SD Card cable next time I'm near an Apple Store. iPad just seems to become quite unstable when dealing with them, was thinking the iPad Air 2 might cope with them far better. I'm happy exporting as JPEG (which is the only option VSCO has) but I prefer to be editing RAWs than JPEGs. I dunno, I might just deal with it or pluck up the courage to buy an Air 2. I only recently bought one for my girlfriend, didn't really want to find myself shedding out for another one!
 

MCAsan

macrumors 601
Jul 9, 2012
4,587
442
Atlanta
Understood. I don't use IOS devices for photography unless it is an emergency as you can't get a raw file from them. So editing a jpg in an IOS device is not my cup of tea. I am more traditional and use LR as my DAM with plugins for added capabilities.

Thanks for the info.
 

skaeight

macrumors regular
Jan 7, 2009
212
3
Yeah, RAW files transfered to Photos from my MacBook Pro - I plan to purchase the Lightning to SD Card cable next time I'm near an Apple Store. iPad just seems to become quite unstable when dealing with them, was thinking the iPad Air 2 might cope with them far better. I'm happy exporting as JPEG (which is the only option VSCO has) but I prefer to be editing RAWs than JPEGs. I dunno, I might just deal with it or pluck up the courage to buy an Air 2. I only recently bought one for my girlfriend, didn't really want to find myself shedding out for another one!

Maybe try it out on your girlfriend's iPad first? I think this issue is inherent with the way that iOS handles RAW images though. My understanding is that it basically does a jpg conversion and works off of that. Again though the Air 2 may improve things because it could just be filling up its RAM when it's trying to do the conversion.


Also back to the topic of this thread - we may be waiting a while:

https://twitter.com/HanBalk/status/582876952282968064

For what it's worth this says April 21. I have no idea whether that's accurate or not, we've seen plenty of these that haven't come to fruition in the past.
 

576316

macrumors 601
May 19, 2011
4,056
2,556
Back to the original topic.....I guess we will not see LR 6 until April....or later.

At this point, I'm struggling to care. :D

----------

Maybe try it out on your girlfriend's iPad first? I think this issue is inherent with the way that iOS handles RAW images though. My understanding is that it basically does a jpg conversion and works off of that. Again though the Air 2 may improve things because it could just be filling up its RAM when it's trying to do the conversion.


Also back to the topic of this thread - we may be waiting a while:

https://twitter.com/HanBalk/status/582876952282968064

For what it's worth this says April 21. I have no idea whether that's accurate or not, we've seen plenty of these that haven't come to fruition in the past.

I likely will test it out on her iPad Air 2, just to see if the crashing is less frequent, if at all. As I understand it, iOS is capable of manipulating and store RAW files because it recognises them as genuine file types. It's just that when you 'share' from VSCO back to Photos, it automatically creates a full resolution JPEG with no option for anything larger. So I think iOS can deal with RAW files, it's just down to the power resources that the device has available to it.
 

robgendreau

macrumors 68040
Jul 13, 2008
3,471
339
At this point, I'm struggling to care. :D

----------



I likely will test it out on her iPad Air 2, just to see if the crashing is less frequent, if at all. As I understand it, iOS is capable of manipulating and store RAW files because it recognises them as genuine file types. It's just that when you 'share' from VSCO back to Photos, it automatically creates a full resolution JPEG with no option for anything larger. So I think iOS can deal with RAW files, it's just down to the power resources that the device has available to it.

Only a few apps can deal with RAW well on an iOS device, at least for adjustment as opposed to sorting, culling, etc. Photogene, Pirawhna, and PhotoRaw eg. And there may be limitations on the resolution of the resulting image depending on your hardware. All in all a Mac OS (or other OS) device works better...with maybe LR on it. :)
 

576316

macrumors 601
May 19, 2011
4,056
2,556
Only a few apps can deal with RAW well on an iOS device, at least for adjustment as opposed to sorting, culling, etc. Photogene, Pirawhna, and PhotoRaw eg. And there may be limitations on the resolution of the resulting image depending on your hardware. All in all a Mac OS (or other OS) device works better...with maybe LR on it. :)

Nope. I'm in love with the VSCO filters. I'm happy with the export resolution of VSCO which appears to be full res. Literally the only problem I'm having is regular crashing.
 

skaeight

macrumors regular
Jan 7, 2009
212
3
I think some people won't believe this after all of the discussion that's gone back and forth on this topic over the past few months, but I have a confession to make.

I've been using Photos for the past few days and.... I actually really really freaking like it! :eek:

It has "almost" everything you actually need in a photo editor, but most importantly the tools that it does have are buttery smooth and fast, and effective. For whatever reason LR's sliders don't have the same effect that Apple's do. In iPhoto and then Aperture I had always done a first pass with the Levels, followed by shadows, and highlights. There just isn't a real equivelant in LR - there is probably a much more complicated way with curves, but it's kind of like, why do I need to learn a more complex way to do something that I've done for years in a simpler way?

The effect of shadows and highlights sliders is simply amazing, and having a black level slider that does something is also fantastic. Overall, Photo's sliders feel powerful, which I don't feel with Lightroom. I think being away from Apple's editing tools for a few months has shown me how good their tools actually are.

I'm also kind of seeing the wisdom of Apple's smart sliders, especially the black and white one. You can start with them just to get it close to where you want the picture to be and then fine tune from there. The black and white smart slider is actually a triumph of design. It is honestly the best B&W implementation I've ever seen - try it out, you'll see what I mean. It takes the place of the red, orange, blue, etc b&w filters. It effectively lets you scrub through all the different looks to get the one you want - you dont' need to know what color you're filtering - you really shouldn't need to care.

I'm also in love with how the appliction looks. It fits right in in Yosemite and navigating around is smooth as glass. Everything is smooth, nothing is stuttery.

And integrated iCloud sharing! Oh how I've missed you! No more exporting just to share or use an edited photo!**

So ya, I basically take back everything I said in the great LR vs Photos debate of the Winter of 2015. I was wrong. I really need to take this as a lesson - don't open my mouth until I've tried something.

Don't get me wrong, I fully recognize this product is not finished and is missing some stuff, but honestly I think I can use the product as it is for now. There is nothing that's missing that is going to kill me. I can fill in the gaps with other applications until extensions arive. In the rare occasion I use my wide lens, I'll use PTLens, not ideal, but it's an edge case. I don't want to let edge cases coral me into a bad decision. I've hinted at this above, but LR just feels like too much. I don't want to have to think about file names, and where things live, and whether I should be tweaking one of 200 sliders, I just want to take photos and be able to easily edit and share them. That's it.

So I will probalby be cancelling my CC subscription in a few months (I want to at least wait until 6 is released just to be certain). With that I'll lose Photoshop, but I do have Pixelmator and plan to get Affinity (the beta looks good so far).

So ya, that's that. Seriously though, give Photos a look. Apple has kind of redefined photo editing and no one noticed. People may think I'm nuts on this, but it just feels right. It's not going to be for everyone, but if you're not a Pro Photographer or someone who has a need for excruciatingly detailed metadata, it may work for you.
 

FredT2

macrumors 6502a
Mar 18, 2009
572
104
So ya, that's that. Seriously though, give Photos a look. Apple has kind of redefined photo editing and no one noticed. People may think I'm nuts on this, but it just feels right. It's not going to be for everyone, but if you're not a Pro Photographer or someone who has a need for excruciatingly detailed metadata, it may work for you.
Thanks for giving it a fair try. I'm looking forward to it's release so that I can see for myself.
 

VirtualRain

macrumors 603
Aug 1, 2008
6,304
118
Vancouver, BC
I think some people won't believe this after all of the discussion that's gone back and forth on this topic over the past few months, but I have a confession to make.

I've been using Photos for the past few days and.... I actually really really freaking like it! :eek:

It has "almost" everything you actually need in a photo editor, but most importantly the tools that it does have are buttery smooth and fast, and effective. For whatever reason LR's sliders don't have the same effect that Apple's do. In iPhoto and then Aperture I had always done a first pass with the Levels, followed by shadows, and highlights. There just isn't a real equivelant in LR - there is probably a much more complicated way with curves, but it's kind of like, why do I need to learn a more complex way to do something that I've done for years in a simpler way?

The effect of shadows and highlights sliders is simply amazing, and having a black level slider that does something is also fantastic. Overall, Photo's sliders feel powerful, which I don't feel with Lightroom. I think being away from Apple's editing tools for a few months has shown me how good their tools actually are.

I'm also kind of seeing the wisdom of Apple's smart sliders, especially the black and white one. You can start with them just to get it close to where you want the picture to be and then fine tune from there. The black and white smart slider is actually a triumph of design. It is honestly the best B&W implementation I've ever seen - try it out, you'll see what I mean. It takes the place of the red, orange, blue, etc b&w filters. It effectively lets you scrub through all the different looks to get the one you want - you dont' need to know what color you're filtering - you really shouldn't need to care.

I'm also in love with how the appliction looks. It fits right in in Yosemite and navigating around is smooth as glass. Everything is smooth, nothing is stuttery.

And integrated iCloud sharing! Oh how I've missed you! No more exporting just to share or use an edited photo!**

So ya, I basically take back everything I said in the great LR vs Photos debate of the Winter of 2015. I was wrong. I really need to take this as a lesson - don't open my mouth until I've tried something.

Don't get me wrong, I fully recognize this product is not finished and is missing some stuff, but honestly I think I can use the product as it is for now. There is nothing that's missing that is going to kill me. I can fill in the gaps with other applications until extensions arive. In the rare occasion I use my wide lens, I'll use PTLens, not ideal, but it's an edge case. I don't want to let edge cases coral me into a bad decision. I've hinted at this above, but LR just feels like too much. I don't want to have to think about file names, and where things live, and whether I should be tweaking one of 200 sliders, I just want to take photos and be able to easily edit and share them. That's it.

So I will probalby be cancelling my CC subscription in a few months (I want to at least wait until 6 is released just to be certain). With that I'll lose Photoshop, but I do have Pixelmator and plan to get Affinity (the beta looks good so far).

So ya, that's that. Seriously though, give Photos a look. Apple has kind of redefined photo editing and no one noticed. People may think I'm nuts on this, but it just feels right. It's not going to be for everyone, but if you're not a Pro Photographer or someone who has a need for excruciatingly detailed metadata, it may work for you.

Nice write up! I agree with what you've said... Especially the performance. Adobe and Phase One should both feel horribly embarrassed by their performance (especially on 4K displays) and be on the next flight to Cupertino to beg Apple for some advice on how to properly optimize an image editing app on OS X.

I think your assessment of the sliders is also accurate, they are fairly intelligent... certainly better than Aperture.

However, a lot of my travel photography is done in lighting with lots of dynamic range and simple shadows and blacks are rarely sufficient... Global adjustments always cause a trade-off, improving one area and ruining another. I invariably need local adjustments since not all shadows usually need or warrant lifting to the same extent. The same goes for colour.. I often want to do tonal adjustments to specific areas such as darken and saturate the sky without making someone's blue jeans looking unnatural in the process. Having local control over micro-contrast and sharpening is also important in shots with bokeh or shallow DOF. And finally, good high ISO NR is important for me as I hardly ever travel with a flash. So for these reasons, Photos doesn't meet my needs at all really.
 

skaeight

macrumors regular
Jan 7, 2009
212
3
Nice write up! I agree with what you've said... Especially the performance. Adobe and Phase One should both feel horribly embarrassed by their performance (especially on 4K displays) and be on the next flight to Cupertino to beg Apple for some advice on how to properly optimize an image editing app on OS X.

I think your assessment of the sliders is also accurate, they are fairly intelligent... certainly better than Aperture.

However, a lot of my travel photography is done in lighting with lots of dynamic range and simple shadows and blacks are rarely sufficient... Global adjustments always cause a trade-off, improving one area and ruining another. I invariably need local adjustments since not all shadows usually need or warrant lifting to the same extent. The same goes for colour.. I often want to do tonal adjustments to specific areas such as darken and saturate the sky without making someone's blue jeans looking unnatural in the process. Having local control over micro-contrast and sharpening is also important in shots with bokeh or shallow DOF. And finally, good high ISO NR is important for me as I hardly ever travel with a flash. So for these reasons, Photos doesn't meet my needs at all really.

I can definitely see those items being problems. I've never gotten into using local adjustments, so I guess it's a case of not knowing what I'm missing.

Noise Reduction is more of a problem for me. It is very much still the same as it was in Aperture. I actually hadn't edited high ISO photos before my last post yet. I ended up running into a few of those last night, and the results are as you would have expected out of Aperture, which was somewhat of a surprise to me after being used to Lightroom for a few months.

But, I don't see this as a show stopper for me at this point. Just about everything else about Photos is more appealing to me than Lightroom. If I end up having to use my bounce flash indoors a little bit more, so be it - the pictures will come out better anyways and there won't be a chance of having people look like Barbie dolls.

I do agree that this definitely a weakness of Apple. I previously thought they had improved it with Yosemite, but that was before I used Lightroom.

Overall though, I am excited to see where Apple takes this product. I couldn't see this before, but this is actually a pretty good 1.0 version. Part of the reason I'm willing to give it a spin is it is only the beginning. They will add features and extensions will eventually come.

Oh one thing I didn't mention originally. They've actually got a decent set of keyboard shortcuts defined. You can mostly get around the application with primarily your keyboard. As an example, I'd previously complained you con't see the shot ISO, Aperture, Shutter speed while editing if you hadn't opened it ahead of time, well cmd+i does that. There's also some as far as I can tell undocumented keyboard shortcuts once you've entered edit mode - you can get between the different edit modes by hitting the first letter (e.g. a for Adjustments, c for Crop, etc.). Really pretty great and it played heavily into me being able to accept the application, it brings a level of "proness" to it that I don't constantly have to be reaching for the mouse to get somewhere.

Finally I did figure out that you can copy and past adjustments, just like you could with Aperture. This isn't presets, but it's something, this again contributed to my satisfaction with the app. So hopefully they'll build on it and eventually add presets.
 
Last edited:

maflynn

macrumors Haswell
May 3, 2009
73,682
43,740
Nice write up. For me Photo's missing features, especially in the DAM area are what stops me. I understand its not a bad program, but just one that doesn't fit my needs. I'm no fan of of the iCloud feature as well, but then I have little desire to upload my images (or worse pay for storage).

That doesn't mean its a poor product, if it fits your needs, more power to you :)
 

The Bad Guy

macrumors 65816
Oct 2, 2007
1,141
3,539
Australia
I'm not laughing at you if Photos fits your needs, but I'm laughing at you if you think Photos fits others needs.

Example: I'd like to think most here are familiar with my style of photography (if you're not, it's portraiture). Tell me...how does Apple's Photos help my workflow?

I make money off my ****, software is important to me. Does this software help me make money?

----------

I'll answer your question, The Bad Guy: No....no it doesn't.

Ya wanna know why? Sure. Tell me why, The Bad Guy.

Because Apple are a phone company at the moment (soon to be an automobile / home automation company) and they couldn't give a flying **** about your pretty pictures that aren't taken on their own inferior devices. Even though they tried to swoon you with 'Pro' apps a few years ago.
 

r.harris1

macrumors 68020
Feb 20, 2012
2,210
12,757
Denver, Colorado, USA
I'm not laughing at you if Photos fits your needs, but I'm laughing at you if you think Photos fits others needs.

Example: I'd like to think most here are familiar with my style of photography (if you're not, it's portraiture). Tell me...how does Apple's Photos help my workflow?

I make money off my ****, software is important to me. Does this software help me make money?

----------

I'll answer your question, The Bad Guy: No....no it doesn't.

Ya wanna know why? Sure. Tell me why, The Bad Guy.

Because Apple are a phone company at the moment (soon to be an automobile / home automation company) and they couldn't give a flying **** about your pretty pictures that aren't taken on their own inferior devices. Even though they tried to swoon you with 'Pro' apps a few years ago.

I couldn't find where anyone was trying to tell you that you should use Photos and yet here you are going off on a The Bad Guy rant about what you think Apple are or are not and how people can or can't make money with a piece of software. Too much (or little) espresso this morning? :D I think you've said before that you're a heavy LR and perhaps heavier PS user. Awesome! I wouldn't expect, given your style, that Photos would even be on your radar. That said, people can make money off of images created from any one of the many tools out there. Workflow is personal, as are the tools in someone's kit. To use "The Bad Guy" vernacular, I wouldn't expect that anyone who buys your images gives a flying **** about the software you used to create it.;) The image is what counts. You have a way of getting to that finished product. Others have theirs.

To me, what the whole LR-vs-Photos-vs-Aperture-vs-C1-vs-____ debate shows is that there are a lot of great tools out there and that instead of laughing at someone for not using one of these, laugh at someone who can't find a way using one of them to generate an image pleasing to themselves (and perhaps others).
 
Last edited:

robgendreau

macrumors 68040
Jul 13, 2008
3,471
339
I'm glad Photos works for you.

Lr (and the various others) aren't really in the same market, however. There are probably ten features missing in Photos that are "must haves" for me, and I'm not even using photo software to make money now.

But it also raises the important point that people (and face it, probably amateur photographers most of all) often buy "pro" or feature-laden stuff they really don't need. And if you don't miss a feature, maybe you don't need it.

The things I did like about Photos are the adjustments. For some basic, and most frequently used stuff, it does rock. I'm sure there is some great stuff under the hood.

I'd love to be able to use those tools easily. And maybe even iCloud. But it's more trouble than it's worth right now: no "edit in," so you have to import a photo, adjust in Photos, then export, all manually. "Silky smooth" sliders maybe, but that's a rocky road of a workflow. And although I like the adjusters, there's nothing there that is worth the trouble of doing that regularly on the desktop (on my iOS device is a whole other matter), and nothing that I can't replicate elsewhere.

But if you're following this thread it's worth checking out Photos in beta to see for yourself; you can save a bundle of money if it works for you. After all, the vast majority of people using Macs have made do with iPhoto.
 

skaeight

macrumors regular
Jan 7, 2009
212
3
I'm glad Photos works for you.

Lr (and the various others) aren't really in the same market, however. There are probably ten features missing in Photos that are "must haves" for me, and I'm not even using photo software to make money now.

But it also raises the important point that people (and face it, probably amateur photographers most of all) often buy "pro" or feature-laden stuff they really don't need. And if you don't miss a feature, maybe you don't need it.

The things I did like about Photos are the adjustments. For some basic, and most frequently used stuff, it does rock. I'm sure there is some great stuff under the hood.

I'd love to be able to use those tools easily. And maybe even iCloud. But it's more trouble than it's worth right now: no "edit in," so you have to import a photo, adjust in Photos, then export, all manually. "Silky smooth" sliders maybe, but that's a rocky road of a workflow. And although I like the adjusters, there's nothing there that is worth the trouble of doing that regularly on the desktop (on my iOS device is a whole other matter), and nothing that I can't replicate elsewhere.

But if you're following this thread it's worth checking out Photos in beta to see for yourself; you can save a bundle of money if it works for you. After all, the vast majority of people using Macs have made do with iPhoto.

One thing I've found that makes the lack of an "edit in" a little more tolerable is that the export can be eliminated by opening the edited photo in the Media Browser portion of the Open Dialogue in the application you want to work in. It does still have to be imported again though.

For me though, I was exporting out of Lightroom to share and use the photos a lot more than I will need to "round trip" to other applications, so from this stand point I think I'm actually ahead of the game. Also being able to use my edited photos for things like screensavers, wallpapers, and on the apple tv without an export is a huge win.

Agreed on "Pro" apps. I kind of thought I needed a lot of features with LR, but I really realized I can get by with a lot less. That could change for me at some point in the future, but for now I'm pretty darn happy. But make no mistake, use whatever makes you happy:). No more dogma for me and photo editing applications. :D
 

skaeight

macrumors regular
Jan 7, 2009
212
3
Alright...the honeymoon is wearing off a little bit.

iCloud sync of albums just doesn't work yet. I noticed my devices had different numbers of pictures in them for a project I've been working on. I had deleted a bunch of photos and they were still on some of the other devices. I go and open Photos back up and they start coming back. I try deleting them again, go back to the other devices to see if they cleared - nope - same thing happened again - they get pushed back to Photos on the mac.

This is a beta, but I'm not going to spend anymore time on this. :(

The other thing is I just learned how to use curves LR - much easier than I thought and I realize now that's the actual way to create the faded look manually in LR.

So...I think I'm back with CC. Photos is a cool app, but I just hitting small things that will be a problem moving forward. It's still going to be cool to watch it progress. Maybe someday.

I really hope LR 6 comes soon though. I need some GPU acceleration after working with Photos.
 

576316

macrumors 601
May 19, 2011
4,056
2,556
Alright...the honeymoon is wearing off a little bit.

iCloud sync of albums just doesn't work yet. I noticed my devices had different numbers of pictures in them for a project I've been working on. I had deleted a bunch of photos and they were still on some of the other devices. I go and open Photos back up and they start coming back. I try deleting them again, go back to the other devices to see if they cleared - nope - same thing happened again - they get pushed back to Photos on the mac.

This is a beta, but I'm not going to spend anymore time on this. :(

The other thing is I just learned how to use curves LR - much easier than I thought and I realize now that's the actual way to create the faded look manually in LR.

So...I think I'm back with CC. Photos is a cool app, but I just hitting small things that will be a problem moving forward. It's still going to be cool to watch it progress. Maybe someday.

I really hope LR 6 comes soon though. I need some GPU acceleration after working with Photos.

Photos isn't even showing me my shared albums on Yosemite anymore, since about two betas ago!
 

robgendreau

macrumors 68040
Jul 13, 2008
3,471
339
Humm. I wasn't getting the Media Browser in the open dialogs. I wonder why? Maybe I'm behind a bit on the beta?

That does help; I used it a bunch in iPhoto for lots of everyday snaps I had for various non-photography purposes, if you will.

EDIT: turns out I couldn't find it from an open dialog in Pixelmator, but could in another application, GraphicConverter. Didn't realize it was application specific.
 
Last edited:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.