Apple cancels Aperture

[DiploStrat]

It is very, very early to begin slitting one's wrists over Aperture. Unlike some here, I have used Aperture since 2006 and always found Lightroom to be a pain.

The REAL issue here is not the program ("app" if you prefer) but rather the underlying foundation. Apple is taking steps to make photo management, specifically a RAW centric, non-destructive workflow, an integral part of the OS. The OS, not your app will find, manage, and even adjust your images. That is a huge thought. And it may be completely wrong.

The interesting thing is that, in the beginning, the complaints about Aperture were that its RAW developer was not as good as either the camera manufacturer's program or as various third party RAW developers. Seems to me that that is still the issue. That and the fact that Apple did not support as many cameras as rapidly as others.

-- If Apple's RAW engine is good enough, then the new image management architecture and interface that they are proposing is very interesting - idiot easy automation with full manual control underneath. (Bit like my Allison auto transmission.) Apple has committed to keeping both your originals and edits to date. (For both Aperture and iPhoto, since they moved to a combined data base some time back.)

-- If Apple's RAW engine is NOT good enough, then nothing matters except whether to go with Adobe for a semi complete work flow or DXO, Capture, et al. for a do it yourself option.

This video is most interesting: http://www.apple.com/apple-events/june-2014/ Skip to about 73 minutes in and look closely. Geeks will see what they are looking at.

Another useful link: http://www.apertureexpert.com/tips/2014/6/30/closer-look-photos-adjustments-bar#.U7Ll5BbPig_

Finally, some comments by Thom Hogan who has never been a great fan of Aperture, but who is always worth reading, especially for things related to landscapes, critters (Botswana) and Nikon: http://www.dslrbodies.com/accessori...software-news/another-one-bites-the-dust.html He says what I have been trying to say, only more elegantly - it is Adobe that has to think about catch up, not Apple. Apple has already done the hard work in Core Image.

 

[grogie]

^Apple's upcoming Photo software does look promising. Thanks for the link.

Wether I move to LR or wait for Photos, I just want my next option to be a long term as my photo library continues to grow.

 

[DiploStrat]

Patience, Grasshopper.

I only have just over 18,000 images in my library, but that still represents a lot of edits. At this point, Photos is simply vapor ware, but it is the only solution that promises to preserve those edits, so I will wait and see.

Photos offers some tantalizing features:

-- Ability to share images between my laptop on the road and my "studio" at home.
-- All of the features that Aperture users have wanted, better noise reduction, perspective correction, more highlights/shadows, etc., are being written into the MacOS and iOS.
-- A slick new interface means that you could even edit on your iPhone or tablet and have the results show up on your desktop. Nobody comes close to that.
-- An open RAW pipe that would allow tools like Nik or onOne to work directly, without the need for a TIFF file - that alone is huge.

As so much of this is in the OS, it will be interesting to see how much, if any of it, appears in Yosemite.

Of course, it could all turn out to be garbage, in which case I will take another look at Lightroom. Maybe by that time Adobe will have cleaned up the UI. I tend to agree with Thom Hogan, Aperture, the app we know, may be dead, but Apple has game changing ideas for digital photography. Ideas that promise as much of a revolution in workflow as Aperture created back in 2005.

 

[robgendreau]

Apple's Photos and RAW? Hard for me to be optimistic: half a year later and still no Apple support for my camera, while Adobe (and even GraphicConverter) supported it months and months ago.

We'll see. I learned long ago not to trust and commit to any one format, database, hardware solution, etc. That's a big reason why I started transitioning out of Aperture into LR a couple years ago. I had to export a bunch of stuff just to deal with metadata (let alone edits) and I realized yikes, I am backing myself into a corner. In my business I even started archiving text documents as RTF. While the problem is not limited to the Mac OS, Apple has orphaned a lot of stuff, and it seems to be the more business oriented stuff. They have never really succeeded in that arena, and only have what, Logic and Final Cut and sorta Filemaker? And the Mac Pro languished as long as Aperture.

I see it as sort of a blessing that they get out of stuff they don't do well. Opening up frameworks and tools in the system that non-Apple developers can harness in creative ways seems to be the way to go. After all, they'll be getting that 30% cut of each photo application that gets sold in the Mac App Store, probably generating way more income than iPhoto and Aperture combined. And organizing photos is a mess, even for just Joe iPhone photo-taker. And sharing is even more a mess. Pro and hobbyist photographers are pretty organized; a regular family with social media accounts a couple of Macs and iPhones is a nightmare. Maybe they'll sort it; they'd be the first. And while they're at it, perhaps they can finally overhaul the Finder.

As far as getting your keywords out of Aperture, ouch. I had to do some massive exporting. But doing it gradually made it easier. I sure wish someone would make a plugin, Applescript or whatever to just write metadata (minus edits) to the files so LR or whatever else you can use would import them easily. I could replicate some of my Aperture project/album structure in LR by using hierarchical keywords instead; that saved a bunch of time.

 

[Lost Canadian]

As I sit here typing on my Mac with my iPhone in front of me I have to admit I have not been impressed with Apple of late. Chazz is right, Apple has become anything but professional. The only thing that looked interesting to me about Photo's was the organization of images and the ability to share edits across devices, but of course that's contingent upon having enough storage in the cloud to keep those photos stuffed away there, which of course Apple will kindly offer to you, at a cost. And it's not really new, it's the same basic idea as Lightroom's mobile solution.

A tight raw pipeline between programs is already possible with LR, and DXO has proven that. You can send raw edits back and forth between Lightroom and DXO Optics Pro without the need to convert to TIFF, JPG or some other format so it does't necessarily require the converter be built into the OS for it to be possible.

The editing power of Photo's looks pretty basic too, the only thing that is cool is having the ability to edit raw files built into the OS freeing up third parties to develop some cool apps, but if the conversion of those raws by the OS is substandard, and if apple fails to keep up with camera releases, which their track record is spotty at best, then it will not be a viable option, at least not from pro's point of view.

I really want apple to do well but I have serious doubts that "photos" will be anything but a reimagined iPhotos app, just built into the OS.

 

[robgendreau]

If you look at the iOS 8 info for developers you'll see that Apple's plans definitely will improve both photo management and editing on those devices. Apps can access common tools, so they don't all have to replicate your photos to do editing. And it should be easier to pass things around. And of course anything will be better than Photostream. But Apple does have a miserable record when it comes to cloud services. They are SO far behind. I'm surprised they don't offer unlimited non-commercial storage given their resources and what they'll have to do to catch up.

On the Mac OS Photos will provide some under the hood tools through coreimage that may be both speedy and useful. That will probably be good news for all photo apps on the Mac. The WWDC demo'd some cool features that combined some tools to good effect, but also allowed more specific tweaking. But organizationally? Dunno. I didn't see much in the way of custom virtual organization, just sorta what iPhoto has now. But I imagine they'll include more. Apparently it will be extensible, although what that means exactly, dunno.

And "dunno" is the key here. A lot of Apple fans don't get that if you are serious about a bunch of data you have you are rather reluctant to commit it to formats and organizational structures without more of a roadmap to the future. I can be pretty confident in storing stuff in certain file formats by now, but edits in an Apple database? not so much. And although Adobe is much more transparent than Apple, I make sure I don't get everything bound up in LR as well.

Apple's a hardware company, mostly mobile devices. Stuff like Aperture, Bento, Appleworks, MobileMe, iPhoto, iCloud, iWeb, MacPaint, FCP and the rest is basically a whizz bang to encourage people to get the hardware and get off to a good user experience. They aren't catering to business customers and haven't since they lost that war with IBM ages ago. I actually think that now that they get so much money from other people's software through the Mac App Store that they can just concentrate on common tools in the system software. Photo management at a basic level should just be part of the system, like the Finder, and open to other applications to expand.

 

[Chazz Layne]

I learned long ago not to trust and commit to any one format, database, hardware solution, etc. That's a big reason why I started transitioning out of Aperture into LR a couple years ago. I had to export a bunch of stuff just to deal with metadata (let alone edits) and I realized yikes, I am backing myself into a corner.

I made the switch for exactly the same reasons, and that's also why I keep away from all of the "smart" features. If I woke up tomorrow and couldn't use LR all of my albums, keywords, star ratings, and other meta would be alive and well in the file system. As a bonus the photo library can be shared on the network since they're just flat files, something which could never happen in Aperture due to it's proprietary in-database storage of images (extremely frustrating in a multi-user environment where everyone needs access to the photo library).

Photo management at a basic level should just be part of the system, like the Finder, and open to other applications to expand.

Indeed!

 

[libarata]

I picked up my Mac Mini(replacing an 08 Imac) Not that I understand this stuff, being a front end user... I had 15 mins to start everything up and leave it for updates until I get home. Will there be a photo/video editing app on there already?

 

[Scott Brady]

We have 750,000+ images in Aperture. The migration to lightroom and photoshop is an unfortunately daunting task, but necessary. There are some really nice features in lightroom now, including app access to the library. It is time.

 

[DiploStrat]

Snark!

We have 750,000+ images in Aperture. The migration to lightroom and photoshop is an unfortunately daunting task, but necessary. There are some really nice features in lightroom now, including app access to the library. It is time.

I would argue that the only people who will be hurt by Apple's announcement are those who panic and undertake huge migrations immediately. If you really believe that Lightroom offers better tools; tools that will produce better images, today, then by all means use it. If you simply want to use Photoshop, you can use that from any number of front ends. If you want a really powerful image management database, then there is no alternative to Aperture. Lightroom may be good enough, but it is nowhere near as powerful.

Migration to Lightroom is not really that daunting; just spit the master images out on disk. There is much gnashing of teeth about losing edits, but I would argue that you will want to redo all of the edits in Lightroom anyway. If Lightroom will not give you a better IMAGE, then why migrate? Keywords, etc., are not as easy, but most people who would consider moving to Lightroom probably don't have very complex libraries. (Otherwise they wouldn't consider it.)
I have to chuckle a bit when everybody says that Apple is a hardware company, or mobile company and dismisses their ability to influence how we process images. Of course, I started using a Macintosh in 1985 and my main machine is still a 2007 MacPro that runs Aperture like a bat out of blazes. The Mac OS has ALWAYS been their crown jewel and now they are developing an integrated photo (and music) ecosystem that spans all of your many devices.

Return with us now to 2005, before Aperture, and there was only ONE way to do photography; you had to use TIFF (big) or JPEG (recompressing) files. If you wanted to shoot RAW, you had to use a workflow that went something like: Camera>RAW Converter to create a new file in your choice of formats>Pixel Editor. Now you had two or maybe three physical files to manage for each image. And, since people often bulk converted their RAW files, they gave up the most versatile part of the development process.

Aperture came along and changed all of this, making it as easy to shoot RAW as JPEG and adding real cataloging capacity. And it was all non-destructive, a hidden boon for the JPEG shooter. Adobe, which had bet all on Photoshop, had to play catch up and create a similar capacity, which they did by gluing Adobe Camera RAW to a simple database and adding some editing and calling it Lightroom.

Fast forward. After five updates many would consider Lightroom the better product; it certainly sells more, but its creaky origins are still very evident. But the key thing is this; most photographers use Lightroom or Aperture to manage their images; they do not use a multi-program/multi-file approach.

Apple has been moving in this direction for a few years; the Aperture database has gone through at least two internal reformats and, in the process, the iPhoto file structure has been eliminated in favor of one, common database. Similarly, Apple has now offered almost every improvement that Aperture users have asked for. Many of the serious/pro photographers that I know make very little use of Photoshop and a lot of use of plugins. Now Apple says that they will be usable in the RAW pipe.

Which brings us to some other thoughts:

-- Why RAW? Or specifically, why RAW at the OS (as opposed to application) level. This, to me, is the real quandary. As Trevor noted, Apple has gotten dinged for being slow about coming out with RAW updates, and then only for the most popular/serious cameras. While I understand the desire to allow you to "see" a RAW file anywhere in the OS, I have to wonder if that is really worth that much as it commits you do doing a lot of hard work. Especially as the golden eye's love to argue over which RAW developer is best.

-- Why does everyone assume that Photos will not be "pro" grade? Does not Apple's commitment to handle RAW development at the OS mean that they are making a real commitment to support those who shoot RAW - that is pros and advanced amateurs? And, exactly what tools do "pros" need? Brushes, curves, Layers? Nik, for example, does all sorts of selective editing without using brushes or layers. Are the Nik tools "pro." Are we being a bit Luddite about the format of our software tools. (Sound like auto vs. manual transmission debates?) I simply don't know the answer to this, but I will bet lunch that Apple is further along than people realize and, at the same time, they are keeping a weather eye on all of the wailing and gnashing of teeth.

-- In the end, this is really about trying to give photographers a reason to prefer the Apple ecosystem - desktop, laptop, and palmtop - over the Windows ecosystem. It is NOT about the single application program Aperture.

For the record, Lightroom is every bit as much a propriety database as Aperture. There is NO difference on this point. Should Lightroom ever go away, there go your edits. But, more to the point, you will never lose your master images with Aperture or Lightroom, as opposed to a pixel editor like Photoshop. Which, of course, is the real reason to use either of these tools.

Sooo, if you use Aperture, relax. It is not going anywhere for about two years. At the end of that time, if Photos doesn't work for you, consider what else may be on the market.

If you use Lightroom, relax. It does what it does today. If Photos offers a better option, you can always migrate in the future and if not, you have lost nothing.

As always, scholars differ, YMMV, etc.

 

[Chazz Layne]

For the record, Lightroom is every bit as much a propriety database as Aperture.

Actually, it isn't. Aperture stores the image files themselves inside it's database. This has the effect of rendering them difficult to access/recover outside of Aperture, impossible to share on the network, prevents meta and albums (the most important part of a catalog/library) from living in the images themselves, and greatly increases resource consumption. I bolded "greatly" to stress how big of an issue this is. If you have enough images in any single Aperture library, Aperture won't even open. It's not a performance issue with the computer (top-of-the-line quad-core 3.4Ghz with 16GB of memory), it's a fundamental flaw in the database design, one that many companies learned to avoid decades ago. You don't store image files inside a database, it's simply a bad idea.

Lightroom does indeed store the image files themselves (including basic RAW adjustments) flat on the hard drive, totally accessible to the file system or any other program that may wish to use them (including network sharing). Also, and most importantly, the meta (keywords, ratings, etc.) and albums remain intact regardless of Lightroom's presence and without the need to "export" anything, and can be easily browsed right from the file system whether or not LR is open or even installed.


I wouldn't be surprised if pixel level edits are stored in some inaccessible place in Lightroom, but I can't say I've ever used it's built-in editing tools... that's what Photoshop is for.

 

[Ryanmb21]

...As a bonus the photo library can be shared on the network since they're just flat files, something which could never happen in Aperture due to it's proprietary in-database storage of images (extremely frustrating in a multi-user environment where everyone needs access to the photo library).

Actually, it isn't. Aperture stores the image files themselves inside it's database. This has the effect of rendering them difficult to access/recover outside of Aperture, impossible to share on the network, prevents meta and albums (the most important part of a catalog/library) from living in the images themselves, and greatly increases resource consumption. I bolded "greatly" to stress how big of an issue this is. If you have enough images in any single Aperture library, Aperture won't even open. It's not a performance issue with the computer (top-of-the-line quad-core 3.4Ghz with 16GB of memory), it's a fundamental flaw in the database design, one that many companies learned to avoid decades ago. You don't store image files inside a database, it's simply a bad idea.

Lightroom does indeed store the image files themselves (including basic RAW adjustments) flat on the hard drive, totally accessible to the file system or any other program that may wish to use them (including network sharing). Also, and most importantly, the meta (keywords, ratings, etc.) and albums remain intact regardless of Lightroom's presence and without the need to "export" anything, and can be easily browsed right from the file system whether or not LR is open or even installed.


I wouldn't be surprised if pixel level edits are stored in some inaccessible place in Lightroom, but I can't say I've ever used it's built-in editing tools... that's what Photoshop is for.

Chazz I think you have this wrong.

Aperture allows two different library storage methods 1) Managed and 2) Referenced libraries. If you use "managed" everything is stored in one large package file (this is what I think you are referring too). If you use a "referenced" library setup all the raw image files are stored just as they left your memory card in regular old file folders. These files can be accessed by any program and shared on the network. I have been using referenced libraries for years. You may have it half right, in that smart albums and keywords are stored in the aperture files and would not be accessable from outside of aperture.

 

[DiploStrat]

Details, details!

Aperture stores the image files themselves inside it's database. This has the effect of rendering them difficult to access/recover outside of Aperture, impossible to share on the network, prevents meta and albums (the most important part of a catalog/library) from living in the images themselves, and greatly increases resource consumption.

Chazz,

With respect, that is a common misconception, but a misconception none the less. Aperture allows you to store your master or original images anywhere you want, inside the Aperture package (which is a form of folder) or on any local drive, even a CD-ROM. And you can mix and match as you wish. In my case, my OS and applications, including my Aperture library, reside on a 500 GB SSD. There is nowhere near enough room on that drive so most of them live on a multi TB HD. In my case, I unload my camera directly into Aperture and park the images inside the Aperture package (called "Managed") to start with as this gives me the greatest possible speed for adjusting big 50MB RAW images. That done, I "relocate" them to the HD, at which point they are referred to as "Referenced" masters in Aperturespeak. My son in law goes one step further, parking his masters on a HD connected to his Airport. Apple does not technically support this, but as his primary machine is a 500GB MacBookPro, he, like me, does not have enough room on his SSD for his enormous panoramas. And, this allows him wireless access to his masters from anywhere in the house.

Bottom line, Aperture masters (and previews and thumbs) are stored in standard, Macintosh files. In fact, each time I download a new release of Lightroom to try it out, I simply have it read the same master image files that I use for Aperture.

As a final note, I would be very surprised if Lightroom stored RAW adjustments in non proprietary files and would love to see documentation of that. Nikon can do it, by writing data back to an extension of the NEF, but I have never heard of any third party being able to do the same. (Doesn't mean that it doesn't happen, but I just don't know how you could do it.)

I know that there is guideline of no more than 10,000 images in a single project, but I have never heard of an Aperture library that was too large to open.

 

[robgendreau]

I think it's a bit harsh to criticize people who are now switching to LR as panicking. After all many switched before that, or chose LR over Aperture from the start. And many might consider it more "powerful," depending of course on how you define it. YMMV, but folks have been arguing about that for years. And of course there are other DAMS as well, and many photographers, especially those that don't work solo, find these DAMs lacking and prefer Bridge, or Photomechanic or even multiuser server-side solutions.

I don't think the issue whether Photos is or isn't "pro" grade; the issue is that NO ONE KNOWS. They like to surprise people. Some folks don't wanna gamble with surprises. Apple could have released specs, or even marketing hype, saying it had this or that "pro" feature. But they didn't, and the burden is on them.

I now prefer to use Aperture with a NON-referenced library. It lags, however, with a referenced library since any change in the filesystem means you lose the connection to whatever virtual structure you have in Aperture. And if you need to move stuff in your filesystem, you cannot do it from within Aperture, as you can with LR and others. With both you can "relocate original..." but I find that far less useful than simply manipulating the filesystem folders directly.

But that reminds me of a tip Aperture plus LR users might find useful. Assuming a non-referenced Aperture library, you can still use LR to reference those files. Go into the Aperture library package, and make an alias of the "masters" folder, or probably better, a subfolder of what you want to see in LR (they're by date: 2014>7>14 for Bastille Day, eg). Move that alias out to say your Pictures folder. Then find the ALIAS in LR's import dialog, and import it, leaving the photos in place (ADD, not copy). Bingo, they now show in LR. And since both can work on them without changing them, no problemo. But what if you do want to move metadata back and forth? It's a royal pain on the Aperture side since you have to essentially export to do that, even with jpgs. But if you "export original" with IPTC and keep the same name and write it back to the same folder where the original is, then you can just use "synchronize folder" in LR to bring it in. In that case it will be like 1234.jpg and 1234 (1).jpg or something, or you could just add "ap" or something in the Aperture export settings. Probably not as useful as just having both Aperture and LR use referenced files, but it's an option.

 

[grogie]

I picked up my Mac Mini(replacing an 08 Imac) Not that I understand this stuff, being a front end user... I had 15 mins to start everything up and leave it for updates until I get home. Will there be a photo/video editing app on there already?

You have iMove and iPhoto. Both are very good programs. See how they work for you. Congratulations on the new Mac!