New Photos, a replacement for Lightroom?

[jefferis]

Has anyone tested the new Photos app? I'd like to stop paying Adobe for Photoshop and Lightroom. Want to know if the new version of Photos is suitable for a replacement for Lightroom (I have Affinity Photo). Was disappointed when Aperture got dropped and Photos replaced iPhotos.... just confusing and tons of duplicates.
So... anyone have any insight? I'm not a pro photographer, but a painter and I do some enhancements for websites. And I have third party programs like OnOne and Aurora HDR

Thanks
Jeff

 

[Mike Boreham]

Has anyone tested the new Photos app? I'd like to stop paying Adobe for Photoshop and Lightroom. Want to know if the new version of Photos is suitable for a replacement for Lightroom (I have Affinity Photo). Was disappointed when Aperture got dropped and Photos replaced iPhotos.... just confusing and tons of duplicates.
So... anyone have any insight? I'm not a pro photographer, but a painter and I do some enhancements for websites. And I have third party programs like OnOne and Aurora HDR

Thanks
Jeff

There is no simple one answer to this....only a gazillion and very opposed opinions. You are going to have to do some serious research and study and try it out for your usage.

Personally I was a heavy Lightroom user for some years, then switched to Aperture which I loved, but now really appreciate Photos for the automatic syncing of pictures and edits across all devices, which is huge for myself and wife, but may not matter at all to you. The editing capabilities are much more powerful than many non-users (or superficial users) realise.

My biggest reservations about Photos are about the inability to "relocate masters" as you could in Aperture, which means once your photos are in a managed Photos library they are locked in. The masters are there and you can export, but not recreate your photos structure outside Photos (as you could with Aperture). You can consolidate all your photos into your managed Photos library, but it is a oneway street. You can run your Photos library as a referenced library, keeping the masters outside Photos (like Aperture and Lightroom) but then it can't be the iCloud Library which syncs across devices.

Swings and roundabouts...your choice!

 

[Lahmy88]

Anyone who has used the beta, can you please confirm if a form of Events folder organisation is back or not?

I loved iPhoto but made the move to Photos without fully understanding the fact that now all your photos sit in these stupid Years/Collections/Moments folders with all your random screenshots etc. all intertwined and you can't cut them up how you see fit, you simply have to recreate iPhoto Events best you can with Albums, however your photos are then only links, not cut out of Moments and pasted to your Albums how iPhoto would have done with Events.

I think it's ridiculous that Apple seems to want to have my device organise my photos for me and thinks it can do a better job when you only need one out of context photo whilst your away on holidays (like a screenshot you've texted a friend or something) to throw out an otherwise nice looking Collections folder.

 

[mixel]

Has anyone tested the new Photos app? I'd like to stop paying Adobe for Photoshop and Lightroom. Want to know if the new version of Photos is suitable for a replacement for Lightroom (I have Affinity Photo). Was disappointed when Aperture got dropped and Photos replaced iPhotos.... just confusing and tons of duplicates.
So... anyone have any insight? I'm not a pro photographer, but a painter and I do some enhancements for websites. And I have third party programs like OnOne and Aurora HDR

Thanks
Jeff

For some users it’s a good substitute, with the right plugins and supporting applications it’s great.. for other users it isn’t. It still doesn’t have multi display support for example, or ratings.. (you can use keywords for the ratings instead though)

One of the DPs - impossible to tell if it was iOS or MacOS - deleted all my albums though, lol.. the photos are still there I just have a lot of resorting to do. 30,000 photos painstakingly sorted.. Not anymore. Haha.

 

[timothevs]

Anyone who has used the beta, can you please confirm if a form of Events folder organisation is back or not?

I loved iPhoto but made the move to Photos without fully understanding the fact that now all your photos sit in these stupid Years/Collections/Moments folders with all your random screenshots etc. all intertwined and you can't cut them up how you see fit, you simply have to recreate iPhoto Events best you can with Albums, however your photos are then only links, not cut out of Moments and pasted to your Albums how iPhoto would have done with Events.

I think it's ridiculous that Apple seems to want to have my device organise my photos for me and thinks it can do a better job when you only need one out of context photo whilst your away on holidays (like a screenshot you've texted a friend or something) to throw out an otherwise nice looking Collections folder.

This, a million times over. By far this is the biggest gripe I have against Photos and why I keep trying to install iPhoto on my Macs. I got peeved enough to email the dev staff at Apple, but of course, never heard back.

 

[jefferis]

My biggest reservations about Photos are about the inability to "relocate masters" as you could in Aperture, which means once your photos are in a managed Photos library they are locked in. The masters are there and you can export, but not recreate your photos structure outside Photos (as you could with Aperture). You can consolidate all your photos into your managed Photos library, but it is a oneway street. You can run your Photos library as a referenced library, keeping the masters outside Photos (like Aperture and Lightroom) but then it can't be the iCloud Library which syncs across devices.

Swings and roundabouts...your choice!

So your biggest objection is to the organizational functions? I am not sure I understand what you mean by the non-transferrable structure. In iPhoto, I had photos categorized in albums by events, .e.g., but are you saying that that structure doesn't transfer to iCloud? I haven't really used Photos much. I thought it was a disappointment after Aperture, but then when Apple introduced Photo, I got duplications of every photo in triplicate and gave up trying to organize. I switched to Lightroom, but now I hardly use it except to work on trip photos I use for art references for painting.
I also really got upset with iCloud and screwing up my music library. Don't think Steve Jobs would have tolerated this mess.

However, from Macworld comes this indication that the new version will have better organizing features?

Better Photos

Photos is rapidly becoming one of the most used apps on our Macs, and in High Sierra it looks we’ll be spending even more time with it. A slew of new features await us in the new OS, including better organization, looped Live Photos, and new Memories categories. It’ll also be easier to identify who’s in your photos with more accurate People identification and cross-device syncing for albums.

You think this might address your issue.

 

[Mike Boreham]

So your biggest objection is to the organizational functions? I am not sure I understand what you mean by the non-transferrable structure. In iPhoto, I had photos categorized in albums by events, .e.g., but are you saying that that structure doesn't transfer to iCloud?

No not saying that....the structure of albums etc does transfer to iCloud and to other devices, (although I have also experienced what others have mentioned with disappearing albums with an iCloud Photo Library).

What I meant is that with an Photos Managed Library your masters are locked in to the Photos Library in a non user user-friendly structure. This is fine as long as Apple supports Photos, but if you ever want to move to something else you will find it very difficult. You have to trust that when Apple kills Photos in five/ten years they will provide a migration path and that you will be happy with the successor.

Aperture had a "Relocate Masters" option which changed a managed library to a referenced library. Photos does not have this.

Lets hope that quote about future improvements addresses this....there is a lot to like about Photos.

 

[DavidThei]

There is no simple one answer to this....only a gazillion and very opposed opinions. You are going to have to do some serious research and study and try it out for your usage.

Personally I was a heavy Lightroom user for some years, then switched to Aperture which I loved, but now really appreciate Photos for the automatic syncing of pictures and edits across all devices, which is huge for myself and wife, but may not matter at all to you. The editing capabilities are much more powerful than many non-users (or superficial users) realise.

My biggest reservations about Photos are about the inability to "relocate masters" as you could in Aperture, which means once your photos are in a managed Photos library they are locked in. The masters are there and you can export, but not recreate your photos structure outside Photos (as you could with Aperture). You can consolidate all your photos into your managed Photos library, but it is a oneway street. You can run your Photos library as a referenced library, keeping the masters outside Photos (like Aperture and Lightroom) but then it can't be the iCloud Library which syncs across devices.

Swings and roundabouts...your choice!

My biggest problems with Photos is still the own structure of the library. You were talking about handling the library as a referenced library. Can you send me a link for more details. Sounds very interesting to me. Thanks!

 

[Bending Pixels]

If you're looking for the same image editing capabilities as Lightroom (i.e. Lightroom's ability to recover shadow/highlights without turning the image muddy, lens correction, camera calibration - things important to me at least) the answer is no.

It's better than than the version with macOS Sierra, but in terms of editing capabilities, it pales to Lightroom.

 

[Mike Boreham]

My biggest problems with Photos is still the own structure of the library. You were talking about handling the library as a referenced library. Can you send me a link for more details. Sounds very interesting to me. Thanks!

Just make sure that "Copy items to the Photos Library" is unchecked in Photos/Preferences/General (screenshot shows checked because I want managed):

The originals will be left where you put them. Don't move or rename them later or Photos will lose track of them, and the reconnect tools is not good.

 

[DavidThei]

Just make sure that "Copy items to the Photos Library" is unchecked in Photos/Preferences/General (screenshot shows checked because I want managed):

The originals will be left where you put them. Don't move or rename them later or Photos will lose track of them, and the reconnect tools is not good.

View attachment 713467

Got it, thanks!

 

[kave]

Got it, thanks!

However, I have problems with it even though I have not moved my original photos it constantly can't find them. I miss Aperture so much, and advanced Photo editor that still worked fine with iCloud etc. Lightroom is very good for editing purposes of course but the organizational part is horrible.

 

[scotttnz]

So, does it handle raw conversion? I didn't think so, but I haven't tried. That is the number 1 reason I use Lightroom.

 

[Mike Boreham]

So, does it handle raw conversion? I didn't think so, but I haven't tried. That is the number 1 reason I use Lightroom.

Photos handles RAW conversion. If you haven't tried Photos (which you admit you haven't) you might get some surprises, but IMO the lack of reconnection/relocation tools is a problem unless you are happy to go all managed.

 

[scotttnz]

Photos handles RAW conversion. If you haven't tried Photos (which you admit you haven't) you might get some surprises, but IMO the lack of reconnection/relocation tools is a problem unless you are happy to go all managed.

Thanks, I learned something today. I'll be sure to try it out before I renew my Adobe subscription.

 

[RednBlue]

Has anyone tested the new Photos app? I'd like to stop paying Adobe for Photoshop and Lightroom.................
Thanks
Jeff

From what you say there, your needs are very similar to mine. I too was a big fan of Aperture and when it was discontinued I went the Lightroom route for a while, but found it over-specified for my needs (plus hating the subscription factor), so I'm quite impressed with the built-in capabilities of Photos, including the way it handles RAW files and its ability to work seamlessly with other Photo Apps like Affinity Photo and Pixelmator. Stick with it - there's a lot there and it gets better with every new release.

 

[hsotnicam8002]

Seems that each HS beta has added an extra copy of each photo and video to my library. The time I've wasted over this issue with all OS's since Photos was introduced would test the Pope's patience! Also, only in the last beta did anything from my iOS devices sync with my iMac. Add to this the constant reorganisation of my albums and I'm looking for the nearest cliff! A similar thing has happened to my iBooks content, which reorganises unpredictably, sometimes duplicates and often fails to sync with my devices. And why the **** can't purchased books be deleted (only hidden)?

 

[SoyCapitanSoyCapitan]

Photos doesn't have lens corrections tools. Those are the first steps you should take when processing images in Lightroom and Camera Raw.

 

[mixel]

Photos doesn't have lens corrections tools. Those are the first steps you should take when processing images in Lightroom and Camera Raw.

DxO OpticsPro for Photos by DxO Labs

https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/dxo-opticspro-for-photos/id1056077392?mt=12

I use that occasionally, but weirdly - Photos and the OS itself applies the standard corrections for most lenses automatically without mentioning anything. It certainly corrects the weirdnesses in some of my cheaper lenses.

https://www.kirkville.com/apples-photos-app-and-lens-correction/

 

[SoyCapitanSoyCapitan]

DxO OpticsPro for Photos by DxO Labs

https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/dxo-opticspro-for-photos/id1056077392?mt=12

I use that occasionally, but weirdly - Photos and the OS itself applies the standard corrections for most lenses automatically without mentioning anything. It certainly corrects the weirdnesses in some of my cheaper lenses.

https://www.kirkville.com/apples-photos-app-and-lens-correction/

I doubt it has a very complete list of lens profiles. Of course there are other tools in Camera Raw/LR for additional straightening and distorting that are really great if you shoot architecture.

For free Photos looks good. It will introduce certain tools to the public that Pros have been using for years.

 

[ccrafford]

There is no simple one answer to this....only a gazillion and very opposed opinions. You are going to have to do some serious research and study and try it out for your usage.

Personally I was a heavy Lightroom user for some years, then switched to Aperture which I loved, but now really appreciate Photos for the automatic syncing of pictures and edits across all devices, which is huge for myself and wife, but may not matter at all to you. The editing capabilities are much more powerful than many non-users (or superficial users) realise.

My biggest reservations about Photos are about the inability to "relocate masters" as you could in Aperture, which means once your photos are in a managed Photos library they are locked in. The masters are there and you can export, but not recreate your photos structure outside Photos (as you could with Aperture). You can consolidate all your photos into your managed Photos library, but it is a oneway street. You can run your Photos library as a referenced library, keeping the masters outside Photos (like Aperture and Lightroom) but then it can't be the iCloud Library which syncs across devices.

Swings and roundabouts...your choice!

[doublepost=1503765064][/doublepost]I am also a heavy user of LightRoom. I recently started using Affinity on my Mac and iPad. It does not have the image management piece yet. It is getting close in capability on image manipulation (and pretty much matches PS) and is a lot less costly. The Affinity folks are also working on a direct competitor to LR. I recommend taking a look at it.

 

[v3rlon]

A lot of people seem to just jump on the hate bandwagon for Photos. A few do the same for LR, to be fair.

Photos has lens corrections for the major stuff (Canon, Nikon, Sony, Tamron, Sigma, Fuji, Panasonic etc). If you have some older, obscure lenses, the DXO optics extension should cover your needs unless you custom grind your own glass.

LR is more powerful than Photos for editing. If that is power you need, then you need it. If you are mostly doing minor tweaks to exposure/sharpness/shadows/highlights/Color, Photos may serve you well. High Sierra offers external editors (I bought an extension early this year to do the same) so that you can send images in need of more serious work to Affinity/Pixelmator/Photoshop/whatever your hear desires.

Now if you have a lot of images that need more than Photos but less than Photoshop, but can be serviced by LR, then that may be your best workflow.

It is kind of the same with organizational stuff. Do you need everything LR does? I can usually find what I need with a couple of keywords and a vague idea of the year. For one thing, Photos is blazing fast to scroll through images.

As with anything, you will get more out if you put more in (key words, organization, albums, smart collections).

On the bright side, Photos came free with you OS. There are no feature limitations, no time restrictions, and no watermarks.

Take a few images and import them while leaving the originals where they are. Turn on the advanced options to give you better control over editing, and see how it does for you.

If you absolutely love star ratings, you will probably no like the hack it takes to emulate them in LR.
If you absolutely love easy syncing between your devices and OS integration, Photos is really good at that.
If you mostly do basic edits, Photos will do the job.
If you do a lot of work with brushes and local adjustments, Photos will probably not make you happy.

Try it and see.

The Apple RAW processor has always been a good one. Photos uses the same system Aperture does (the Apple one).