-
All replies
-
Helpful answers
-
Sep 3, 2015 1:35 PM in response to Terence Devlinby flyfifer,I do recall a lot of comment at the time of the Aperture announcement along these lines which Apple corrected rapidly.
It wasn't in the official end of life announcement. But, there were comments at the time by Apple employees admitting that they were working on a migration script with Adobe. It was the main reason that I jumped to LR at that time as I immediately recognised it as a statement that Photos was not going to be aimed in any way at professional or even prosumer users. Because...
That plug-in is all Adobe's own work.
Couldn't be. The Aperture database was a closed piece of proprietary software and the level of data extract required went beyond the defined Aperture APIs. At the very least, Adobe needed Apple to provide them with the database definition so that they could create a migration script. While migration to an undefined database is always possible, it wouldn't have been in the timescales with which that script was produced. And I doubt the motivation would have been high enough for Adobe to make the investment required to understand the database definition themselves. After all, LR was already pretty much the default alternative. The lack of an Aperture migration script was hardly going to give the market to CaptureOne. Particularly in the absence of a migration script to CaptureOne.
You can interpret the above any way you want. But, I have no doubt that Apple needed to do some damage limitation on the end of life message and what I saw was them providing official assistance to Adobe to get users focussing positively on moving to LR rather than focussing negatively on being left in the lurch.
But Adobe can disable any plug-in they want at any time.
Only by putting blocks in future minor versions of LR, which would simply mean that users would be cautious about upgrading (and, indeed, may tempt more users to the LR6 license model rather than the CC license model that Adobe would prefer them to have). But, given that there are a significant number of plug-ins out there that support iCloud competitors (I've already mentioned Google Drive), why would they? Particularly given that, if they only refused to allow iCloud integration, they'd be slapped with an anticompetitive lawsuit?
As a software vendor in this day and age, you need to create a rich API/SDK that allows Cloud providers to easily create plug-ins for your software so you can provide integration as there are too many Cloud solutions for you to realistically create as the software vendor. Adobe have done that.
As a Cloud provider, you need to either be prepared to develop plug-ins for the major software solutions (and, I doubt anyone would argue that LR is *the* major software solution in this field) or provide a rich API that allows third parties to develop them on your behalf. Apple have failed to do that, and not just with iCloud Photos. Until they change that, iCloud will not be a major cloud solution. And, given the way that most industry commentators believe the next few years are going, that could end up hurting Apple a lot.
-
Sep 3, 2015 3:22 PM in response to flyfiferby Terence Devlin,So, when I asked if you could find any actual evidence from Apple or Adobe that they collaborated on the plug-in for LR you take two paragraphs to say, no you can't. Just saying No would have been faster. Web commentary and conjecture do not evidence make.
As for you comments on Apple as an Cloud provider: you assume that the Cloud is a profit source for Apple rather than an expense, and misunderstand that Apple is a hardware company and offer software and services only to support the profit centre: hardware.
-
Sep 3, 2015 4:25 PM in response to Terence Devlinby flyfifer,So, when I asked if you could find any actual evidence from Apple or Adobe that they collaborated on the plug-in for LR you take two paragraphs to say, no you can't. Just saying No would have been faster. Web commentary and conjecture do not evidence make.
Do not misinterpret my response as I can't. Rather, it's that this is a tangent to the actual debate for which I'm not investing the effort to try and find the communication that I read 12 months ago that made me realise that I had to migrate from Aperture to LR.
The real issue is that I challenged the position that it was Adobe's responsibility to create the iCloud plug-in. That is still, absolutely, 100% not the case. Smugmug have worked that out. Zenfolio have worked that out. 500px have worked that out. Apple haven't. And the arguments that have been made in here that Adobe would actively block one are, frankly, laughable given both the existence of similar plug-ins and any logical analysis of the situation.
As for you comments on Apple as an Cloud provider: you assume that the Cloud is a profit source for Apple rather than an expense, and misunderstand that Apple is a hardware company and offer software and services only to support the profit centre: hardware.
The entire industry is currently focussed on a vision that the future is not asking customers to spend huge amounts of money every few years. Rather, it's persuading customers to provide regular, monthly, subscription-focussed payments. To suggest that Apple themselves don't understand that is laughable given the number of subscription-based products that they are bringing out.
Even if Apple didn't realise that and did simply regard Cloud as an expense, they really wouldn't invest the incredibly small amount of required to produce an LR plug-in to try and reduce the size of the expense? That makes no sense given that we are not talking about a minor, fringe application.
Hardware will always be important to Apple. But, to imply that they don't believe that Cloud is a future revenue stream is laughable. Rather, this is another example that Apple are struggling with understanding internet services (something Jobs himself admitted in 2008) which they need to get over if they are to ensure that they stay a dominant company over the next decade. iPhones and iPads are the last decade's revenue drivers. Cloud services are the next decade's.
-
Sep 5, 2015 12:14 AM in response to flyfiferby Terence Devlin,Do not misinterpret my response as I can't.
It wouldn't be a misinterpretation. Apple did not collaborate with Adobe on that script - tho a lot of web commentary assumed that they would at the time of the EOL announcement from Apple, and which Apple was careful to deny. To do so would be to give Adobe competitive advantage over Capture One, OnOne, Nik et al, and they would (quite rightly) be very annoyed at this.
As for the rest: you're confusing revenue stream with profit centre. They're not the same thing. If you're losing money on a service, letting others use the service increases the loss, not reduces it. I'm amused that you think Apple's future is in Cloud services and not in hardware.
-
Oct 8, 2015 8:52 AM in response to flyfiferby Dirky_UK,HI Graham,
What about photos taken on your iPhone (assuming you have one) , how do these get in to LR? Or are you not bothered?
Just trying to figure out the best way of doing all this, whilst retaining a local copy of entire photo library, using LR for cataloging from that library, and still
using Photos/iCloud for sync to iOS device, Mac etc.
Hmmmmm
-
Oct 8, 2015 9:05 AM in response to Dirky_UKby LarryHN,You need to re-read the very first answer
No one and really, there is no way to sensibly use the two apps together, as they sit at the same point in the workflow. Both are Asset Managers with non-destructive processing. They have no way to talk to each other as they are both databases. Both require that an image is imported before doing anything, and can only speak to the other by exporting to the Finder first.
So, a workflow where you import to LR, process and then export to the Finder, and thereafter add to Photos is about the best there is, but that involves a lot of duplication.
LN
-
Oct 8, 2015 9:10 AM in response to LarryHNby Dirky_UK,Both can import from a folder (or finder as you call it). This could be automated to some degree. Once this is done, yes they go there own ways but for most people that would be fine.
The tricky bit would be getting the photos from an iOS device, to this folder and then back to the device by iCloud without duplication, I expect.
-
Oct 8, 2015 9:22 AM in response to Dirky_UKby LarryHN,The tricky bit would be getting the photos from an iOS device, to this folder and then back to the device by iCloud without duplication, I expect.
No - it is not tricky - it is impossible - each program MUST have its own separate copy of the photo
Try reading again
No one and really, there is no way to sensibly use the two apps together, as they sit at the same point in the workflow. Both are Asset Managers with non-destructive processing. They have no way to talk to each other as they are both databases. Both require that an image is imported before doing anything, and can only speak to the other by exporting to the Finder first.
So, a workflow where you import to LR, process and then export to the Finder, and thereafter add to Photos is about the best there is, but that involves a lot of duplication.
I'm not sure what part of impossible you are having an issue with but it is impossible
LN
-
Oct 8, 2015 11:55 AM in response to Terence Devlinby Terence Devlin,.What about photos taken on your iPhone (assuming you have one) , how do these get in to LR? Or are you not bothered?
You can get images from your Phone with Image Capture (in the Applications Folder). Copy them to the HD then import them to LR.
Both can import from a folder (or finder as you call it). This could be automated to some degree. Once this is done, yes they go there own ways but for most people that would be fine.
Well I'm not sure why you claim to know what would be fine for "most" people but have you though that through?
So, put the photos to a Folder. Consider a Photo called A.jpg. That's now import to Photos and to LR.
If you process or edit the image you then have two quite distinct version - call them Ax for the one created in Photo and Az for the one created in LR. These versions are quite unaware of each other.
Now you want get the LR version into the iCloud Photo Library. So you export it from LR to the Finder and add it to the Folder. Then import it to Photos. Is that what you mean? (Then you have to be careful not to also re-import it to LR, so that rules out any automation, or how will the automatic process know the difference between A and Az, and so you get duplication in both apps.). So stick to manual. Now you have A and Ax and Az in Photos and you want to upload them to the iCloud library but you have a problem. As the Folder in the Finder is shared between LR and Photos and not managed by Photos you cannot use it for iCloud Library.
So to do that need to have duplicate Masters - one in LR one managed by Photos, so, duplicate masters, duplicate version and, as I said, no sensible way to use the apps together.
-
Oct 8, 2015 5:56 PM in response to LarryHNby MMCAN383,No - it is not tricky - it is impossible - each program MUST have its own separate copy of the photo
Try reading again
I'm not sure if it's completely impossible. Photos supports references photographs (uncheck Copy items to the Photos library) but apparently that works so-so with iCloud Photo Library and I imagine that it would be somewhat of a cluster-F having both of they playing with the same referenced photos. Perhaps possible but surely a dangerous idea.
Getting photos from iOS to LR is easy: Use Photosync, Dropbox or similar.
The hard part is how to share your photos on the iOS device as well as Photos does. I haven't found anything that's as good for syncing local copies in the background so that when you open that library, the photos are right there. Smugmug only syncs in the foreground. Dropbox has potential, but now we're back into duplicating photos *unless* you make Dropbox reference your LR photo folders (again, another possible mess up if something syncs back down) and even then it could struggle with the smart previews. Apparently most apps don't background sync because iOS limits your background time so they just don't have time to finish. Dropbox admits that they cheat, probably peeking in & out to get it done bit by bit.
What great photo iOS photo viewers are people using? Do any sync up in the background? I'd probably be happy with the LR iOS app if it synced in the background.
-
Oct 8, 2015 5:58 PM in response to MMCAN383by LarryHN,I'm not sure if it's completely impossible.
OK then you explain to use exactly how to do it
LN
-
Oct 8, 2015 6:24 PM in response to LarryHNby MMCAN383,LarryHN wrote:
I'm not sure if it's completely impossible.
OK then you explain to use exactly how to do it
LN
Next sentence: "Photos supports referenced photographs"
You can add photos to Photos and leave them where they are. Like in the same folder that LR references.
-
Oct 8, 2015 8:32 PM in response to MMCAN383by LarryHN,Except that does nothing the OP ask for
I love the iCloud integration of the new Photos app, it's really great having all my photos available on my phone.
I also love the editing capabilities of Adobe Lightroom.
Has anyone figured out a way of using Photos for the iCloud integration and Lightroom for the editing and post processing?
1 - referenced photos can not be used with iCLoud Photo Library - which is one of the OP's requiremnts - hence impossible
2 - no change can be made to the referenced source photo so any LR edits are limiter to viewing in LR and Photos edits are limited to viewing in Photos - using LR to edit photos in Photos is part of the OP's requirement
and of course there is the problem that Photos is extremely poor at managing referenced libraries making it strongly not recommended to do
again not sure what part of impossible a few argumentative people do not understand - the answer to the OP's question is simple - it is impossible as has been repeated many, many time in this and other related threads - there is simply no possible way to use LR and Photos together except to have two totally separate and independent databases - they can not be used on the same photos
LN
-
Oct 8, 2015 11:10 PM in response to MMCAN383by Terence Devlin,I'm not sure if it's completely impossible. Photos supports references photographs (uncheck Copy items to the Photos library) but apparently that works so-so with iCloud Photo Library
It's not impossible, it's just that it's impossible without wasting HD space on duplicate files. And no, referenced Libraries don't work 'so-so with iCloud Photo Library'. It doesn't work at all. Hence the need for duplicates.
Getting photos from iOS to LR is easy: Use Photosync, Dropbox or similar.
Or Image Capture. Designed for the purpose and already on your Mac.
-
Oct 9, 2015 6:51 AM in response to Terence Devlinby MMCAN383,Or Image Capture. Designed for the purpose and already on your Mac.
Except that Image Capture requires you to physically attach your device. With Photosync, my photos sync over the moment I walk in the door without any intervention.