I switched to Capture One Pro (during an early offer period) and whilst I miss the Aperture DAM facilities, I find C1P a pleasure to use and only rarely revert to other editing software (Pixelmator). Pity, but no looking back.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Who else is still using Aperture?
- Thread starter mtbdudex
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If Lightroom had Aperture's DAM, I would be a happy boy... I'm currently using both.
Aperture Exporter can import your projects, albums, and folders, and I think Capture One might have something similar. But you are locked into the Apple if you wanna use Photo Stream with that, assuming it continues to be supported.
And all your edits will never be exportable, except to Photos.
As far as RAW conversion is concerned, note that Aperture does NOT have it's own RAW conversion. It relies on system software for that. It has more tools, but if one likes Apple's renderings (and it's rather subjective; see a comparsion of a bunch of converters here: RAW Converters Comparison - nomadlens) then perhaps Photos would work. It too uses Apple's raw conversion, it just doesn't have as many tools. And recent entrants include Affinity Photo, Mylio, and probably others, as well as new tools in some of these (dehaze seems to be popular now), especially for certain adjustments (like Noiseless Pro by MacPhun).
I think AfterShot Pro still can use a managed catalog. And of course Lr can export a catalog plus its referenced files. I used Aperture for this in the same way, but it was horrible if you had to give that to a client. With an Lr catalog and its exported folders it was easier, cuz the client could just ignore all the Lr stuff and still have all the photos in their proper folder structure. And by using the file structure one could set permissions for access in file sharing scenarios.
And if you goal is sharing photos back and for to iOS, check out Mylio. It's far more powerful than Aperture/iTunes/Photo Stream/iCloud Photo Library, and far more flexible. And free for three devices and I think 5K photos (no online storage for free, but unlike Apple's apps you don't need online storage to synch). Does RAW, uses color calibration on iOS, and shares edits with Lr as well.
Has anyone considered the question, why does Apple need to provide raw support?
How many people using Photo's shoot raw?
For 3rd party apps that piggyback on Apple's Raw support, some have developed their own demosaicing process (Iridient), some have offered DCRAW in the past and could easily go back to it, a couple of recent offerings depend on Apple. But add all of them up and it's probably a tiny percent of the total images being processed in Mac's (JPEG and raw) as well as a very small percent of the number of raw images converted using Apple Raw support.
On the surface it appears pure expense in a company known for running a very tight ship and not afraid to obsolete past norms. Are there other reasons raw support is needed?
How many people using Photo's shoot raw?
For 3rd party apps that piggyback on Apple's Raw support, some have developed their own demosaicing process (Iridient), some have offered DCRAW in the past and could easily go back to it, a couple of recent offerings depend on Apple. But add all of them up and it's probably a tiny percent of the total images being processed in Mac's (JPEG and raw) as well as a very small percent of the number of raw images converted using Apple Raw support.
On the surface it appears pure expense in a company known for running a very tight ship and not afraid to obsolete past norms. Are there other reasons raw support is needed?
Still using Aperture, for these reason's.
It still works for me
I'm basically an Aperture expert
I like it
Easy integration with Photostream, Google Nik and Photoshop Express
Photo's is garbage at this point
and at this time of year/ with a young son I just don't have time to switch and learn a new interface.
I've investigated the alternatives, and Lightroom will be next, but it might take future OS X incompatibility to force my move.
I had got into a real mess with my Aperture and iPhoto libraries, when I started to import them into the new 'Photos' software (which replaced iPhoto). For some reason 'Photos' Library didn't recognise my Albums from Aperture, nor did it play the Aperture Slideshows I had created. There seemed to be so many issues in using the new 'Photos' Software, I decided to switch to Lightroom 6 (having now wished I made this choice some years ago, its stunning)
Having now been convinced of my choice and the successful import of my Aperture Library, I am now somewhat cautious of importing from the iPhoto/Photos Library. a/. Are there are likely to be duplicate images (for that I have purchased the additional Plug-in manager) for about £8.
I therefore gather that I need to export my iPhoto/Photos library, consisting of about 13k images and then re-import them into Lightroom 6? b/. Can I then assume that all the image files will be moved into LR. Can I recover any file space, or will I need to delete any software or just leave Aperture/Phots unused, as the files have not been copied twice? Hopefully the Image duplication plug-in will advise as to where any multiple copies are?
I simply cannot believe that Apple would withdraw support for Aperture, as well as release the iPhoto replacement, which seemingly is full of bugs!!
Lots of great info sharing and replies.
I plan on sticking with Aperture for near future, 1 year at least.
I'll let the "best" replacement solution come up, and watch/read what others are doing....
"best" may be subjective, as in file management + non-destructive PP in one-stop application for me.
I also prefer to own my data, not do a monthly subscription model either.
others may find a different "best" solution for then.
I plan on sticking with Aperture for near future, 1 year at least.
I'll let the "best" replacement solution come up, and watch/read what others are doing....
"best" may be subjective, as in file management + non-destructive PP in one-stop application for me.
I also prefer to own my data, not do a monthly subscription model either.
others may find a different "best" solution for then.
I use it and I have a certain hope that it will be fully functional in 10.11 If not I stay with 10.10
For the coming years I have no plans to switch away from Aperture until Photos does become a viable alternative.
Good question. I was fearful they'd drop it when they dropped Aperture.
Maybe they'll drop it when they start making iPhone RAW files available...doh!
Doing some prep REALLY helps. Lr ONLY references images, so if your Aperture/iPhoto libraries are referenced you are in much better shape. And that applies to a lot of other alternatives as well since most can reference. It also makes it easier to continue to use the Apple stuff with the non-Apple stuff.
If you do manage images in Ap/iP, then Lr's own Aperture importer will copy out your master/originals, and optionally your previews (useful to see your Aperture adjustments, since those are NOT imported and can't be). So you end up with dupes; obviously if you have a referenced Ap/iP library this needn't occur. You could, however, chuck the Ap/iP library, but until you get to their True Death that might not be an option.
Check out the application Aperture Exporter. I think it does a better job of transitioning, cause it works from inside Aperture, and preps everything for a more effective transition to Lr. Worth the money. And it gives a really nice summary of the differences. https://apertureexporter.com
I'm not sure what "image duplication" plugin you're referring to. It can be very difficult to find dupes; again, if you are referencing images this is much less of a problem.
Same over here ... The more I am understanding C1P, the more I start to like it..I never liked the MO of Abobe to begin with. I shoot only RAW and loves the way C1P handles this. I am convinced the forces to be at PhaseOne are working very hard to continuously improve the C1P experience and who knows what else they might do to improve the DAM features..
What bugs? I have not been happier with a major software release than Photos/iCloud photo library; better function for me and trouble-free syncing between all my devices since release day. Some people miss features that they prefer in the older software, but missing features aren't bugs.
I am still using Aperture. I am comfortable with the UI. I have 100's of Gigs of photos that I don't find porting over would be a lot of fun. I use Photos for family pics (jpegs) so that we can easily access with all of our devices. I have LR, but have been procrastinating on learning the app where I am comfortable with it.
I made the switch when the handwriting was on the wall. Yeah, it still works, but I'd rather take my time with an orderly transition. If some update breaks Aperture then I may be in a bind to quickly move to a different product, something I was not willing to do. Plus as I take more pictures, that would mean even more work to convert over to a new solution. I basically pulled the band-aid off quickly instead of prolonging the pain
I wish I had not moved to photos, a huge amount of pics didn't transfer, all my folders were suddenly gone, just one big mess, worst of all I tried to use Affinity Photo with Photos and you cannot do it, the photos are all in the cloud. You cannot export them unless you copy it to the desktop, edit it, then recopy it back to photos WTF?
I switched to LR around a year ago. I was initially using it in conjunction with PS, but as LR has developed I find that i hardly ever use PS.
Recently I was forced to use Aperture - I was away and the laptop I had with me only had Aperture on it. I have to say that I now find it very limiting compared to LR. Even if Apple decided to do a u-turn and release a new version of Aperture I'd stick with LR.
Recently I was forced to use Aperture - I was away and the laptop I had with me only had Aperture on it. I have to say that I now find it very limiting compared to LR. Even if Apple decided to do a u-turn and release a new version of Aperture I'd stick with LR.
Affinity Photo can look into Photos (geez, couldn't they both come up with real names??). But since Photos is a rather lightweight freebie it doesn't really work well with other applications, hence the need to re-import. And it seems that you are using iCloud Photo Library; perhaps not the best choice if you want to use applications like Affinity's. Time to pick something that works better; even Aperture does for the time being at least.
I went back to Aperture on my older machine. I am using it for all media (video, music, pics) to save room on the new rMBP. I kinda like having 2 Macs..
For those of us that do some photo editing etc from raw Photo is pants and Apple leave us without a replacement. This is the issue most of have with the withdrawal of Aperture support and the replacements we are left with.
I made the jump to Lightroom a few months ago. It lasted a day. I jumped right back.
I really took a liking to Lightroom, but it had one hugerificmongous issue. It seriously sucks handling RAW color settings without customizations. I'm not yet sure auto apply those customizations to tens of thousands of photos so I switched back. I was planning on just jumping right into Lightroom cold and figuring things out as I went along, but that's not gonna fly if all of my photos suddenly look like I shot them using a Polaroid.
I've got gripes about Aperture, but my photos look a lot better in it so I'm stuck until I have a good amount of time set aside for a proper transition. I'm just hoping that Aperture remains stable for at least another 6 months.
I use Aperture for my older libraries still and probably will continue to do so for some time.
However, my new work is now done in Lr CC. Other than the DAM management tools, Lr adjustment tools are better in many ways. Lr's noise reduction and sharpening kill apertures NR and sharpening tools, which before I was round-tripping to an external editor under Aperture. And Lr's built in HDR and Panorama stitcher are time savers for me. Having the option of a full version of Ps doesn't hurt either. It's all a comfortable 10 bucks a month, too. Sure, I'd prefer a one-time purchase price up front, but 10 bucks is ok when I use it every single day.
However, my new work is now done in Lr CC. Other than the DAM management tools, Lr adjustment tools are better in many ways. Lr's noise reduction and sharpening kill apertures NR and sharpening tools, which before I was round-tripping to an external editor under Aperture. And Lr's built in HDR and Panorama stitcher are time savers for me. Having the option of a full version of Ps doesn't hurt either. It's all a comfortable 10 bucks a month, too. Sure, I'd prefer a one-time purchase price up front, but 10 bucks is ok when I use it every single day.
I's still using Aperture. I tried LightRoom and Photos but Aperture still suits me. It's so easy and less fussy than LightRoom witch is too much go here to do that, click this tab to do the other and the retouch tool is just too complex. Photos seems to be aimed at the home user and it's as if Apple dumped the Pro user. Aperture relay looks the part to. I will not upgrade until I find something that is as easy to use and has that pro polish.
I'm still using Aperture too. I really do plan on biting the bullet and switching, but I haven't found anything else that has that simplicity that I like so much about Aperture. It's not so great if you want to do heavy duty editing, but I'm not a fan of doing aggressive HDR toning and such.
My first attempt at switching to Lightroom went badly and I was going to try again, but then I heard that performance is dog slow with larger libraries in Lightroom. The last thing I want is to go through the headache of converting my entire set of libraries only to find them unsuable by virtue of speed.
I guess the good news is that every month, the Lightroom competitors keep getting better so maybe by the time, I have no choice, there'll finally be a suitable replacement.