I was never ecstatic about Aperture's performance, but after trying Photos I've come to appreciate it. (CPU usage routinely over 200% on the latest 15" rMBP, also _very_ high energy usage).
Because Photos doesn't seem able to batch-edit/batch-paste adjustments, and I can't even view a world map with the locations of _all_ of the photos (like the old "places" feature), and because there is no list view that allows sorting by various image properties, I feel forced to find an alternative.
(Though, if these features are somehow hidden in Photos, please let me know!)
How does LR compare in terms of performance and CPU/energy usage when managing a large-ish library? (~77GB, 17000 photos)
Are there other alternatives? (I'm in education so pricing is a...feature to be considered...) In terms of "pure" photography, I'm not a big editor and mainly want something to organize a large library, a chunk of which consists of RAWs. My only "edits", most of the time, happen through a real change of aperture or shutter speed, framing, etc. I really like Aperture's filing/organizing system, and the Places map and Faces were really fun features for me since I could map out my travels and quickly locate photos of individuals without having to manually tag them. I do, however, do a lot of batch editing as I digitize books for academic purposes with photographs I take of them (I batch adjust them from plain photos of pages to black text on a white background by fiddling with white balance/color monochrome, brightness/exposure, and contrast, etc.)
I'd appreciate something that feels (and is) "robust" and can efficiently work with/handle a large and growing library without unnecessarily straining computing resources (battery/cpu). It would help if, beyond actually being robust, it didn't feel windows-choppy in terms of its UI. Is LR6 expected to meet these criteria?
I feel like we should make a petition for Apple to bring back Aperture...
Because Photos doesn't seem able to batch-edit/batch-paste adjustments, and I can't even view a world map with the locations of _all_ of the photos (like the old "places" feature), and because there is no list view that allows sorting by various image properties, I feel forced to find an alternative.
(Though, if these features are somehow hidden in Photos, please let me know!)
How does LR compare in terms of performance and CPU/energy usage when managing a large-ish library? (~77GB, 17000 photos)
Are there other alternatives? (I'm in education so pricing is a...feature to be considered...) In terms of "pure" photography, I'm not a big editor and mainly want something to organize a large library, a chunk of which consists of RAWs. My only "edits", most of the time, happen through a real change of aperture or shutter speed, framing, etc. I really like Aperture's filing/organizing system, and the Places map and Faces were really fun features for me since I could map out my travels and quickly locate photos of individuals without having to manually tag them. I do, however, do a lot of batch editing as I digitize books for academic purposes with photographs I take of them (I batch adjust them from plain photos of pages to black text on a white background by fiddling with white balance/color monochrome, brightness/exposure, and contrast, etc.)
I'd appreciate something that feels (and is) "robust" and can efficiently work with/handle a large and growing library without unnecessarily straining computing resources (battery/cpu). It would help if, beyond actually being robust, it didn't feel windows-choppy in terms of its UI. Is LR6 expected to meet these criteria?
I feel like we should make a petition for Apple to bring back Aperture...
