-
All replies
-
Helpful answers
-
Dec 19, 2015 6:53 AM in response to stullochby léonie,Problem is, I've already migrated my database, so does anyone know if I can convert back to Aperture, or am I now stuck with it?
The migration to Photos does not delete the Aperture library, it creates a migrated copy. And Aperture will stay installed.
You can change the filename extension of the Aperture Library.migratedaplibrary back to Aperture Library.aplibrary and open it in Aperture by double clicking it. You need to update Aperture to version 3.6.. No other version will run on MacOS X 10.3.3 or later. You can only update to this version, if you own an App Store version of Aperture or your Apple ID is associated with Aperture at the App Store. See this User Tip: Updating to Aperture 3.6 After the Release of Photos
To export any newer photos from Photos to Aperture use the Share menu in Photos. It should have an "Add to Aperture" item.
-
Dec 19, 2015 7:12 AM in response to léonieby stulloch,Thanks léonie, that is very helpful. Presumably the migration to Photos hasn't done any damage to my Aperture library then, and if I change the name extension everything will be back to the way it was before I migrated the library to Photos?
-
Dec 19, 2015 7:31 AM in response to stullochby léonie,Presumably the migration to Photos hasn't done any damage to my Aperture library then, and if I change the name extension everything will be back to the way it was before I migrated the library to Photos?
The new filename extension is the only thing that has been changed by the migration. The library should work like before, if you change the filename extension back.
-
-
Dec 19, 2015 8:38 AM in response to eurobornby stulloch,I entirely agree, euroborn. It's the many hours of work that I've put into my Aperture library, organising photos, creating Smart Albums, sharing to Flickr, using the stars system to grade the images, and other things that simply don't work the same in Photos. Even if I move over to some other "external" system such as Lightroom, I will still have lost most of these functions. It may well be the case that some other software systems can offer tools and adjustments just a good as Aperture, but that's not the point. Being able to do fancy manipulation to the images is not my greatest concern. It's losing all the hours that I've already put into it, or having to lose even more hours to re-work a lot of the stuff that I've done already.
-
Dec 19, 2015 8:55 AM in response to stullochby Csound1,But you haven't lost the hours of work you invested in the library. It's still intact.
-
Dec 19, 2015 9:13 AM in response to Csound1by stulloch,Yes it's still intact and I can still use it if I revert back to Aperture (which I intend to do) but a great deal of it is useless in "Photos". For example, the Smart Albums don't work, so if I want to use them I will have to re-do them. When exporting to Flickr the detail such as title, comments etc. doesn't go up with the image. I accept that adjustments and enhancements are intact, but that's not what I'm on about.
-
Dec 19, 2015 9:39 AM in response to stullochby léonie,For example, the Smart Albums don't work, so if I want to use them I will have to re-do them.
Smart albums do work in Photos, provided they are not based on Aperture projects or metadata, that are not supported in Photos.
I accept that adjustments and enhancements are intact, but that's not what I'm on about.<
And the Aperture adjustments do not migrate losslessly to Photos. Atlas the brushed adjustments will be migrated as new quasi masters. If you want to add additional adjustments, you have to revert the photo to the original to be able to continue editing.
-
Dec 19, 2015 10:03 AM in response to stullochby Csound1,Apple were quite clear on the point that Photos is not replacement for Aperture, trying to use it as if is is your choice.
-
Dec 19, 2015 1:30 PM in response to Csound1by stulloch,I'm aware that Photos is not the same as Aperture, and I'm not trying to use it as if it is the same. I was hoping that Photos would do the things that I need, and the only way to find out was to try it. Having done that, I have now concluded that it's not what I want. So I'll go back to Aperture in the meantime, and look for some other system that's more suitable, perhaps Affinity? Anyway, I am very disappointed because like several other people writing on these boards, I believe that Aperture is an excellent system, it does everything that I want / need, and it is sad that Apple have decided to do away with it.
-
Dec 19, 2015 1:40 PM in response to stullochby Allan Eckert,stulloch wrote:
I'm aware that Photos is not the same as Aperture, and I'm not trying to use it as if it is the same. I was hoping that Photos would do the things that I need, and the only way to find out was to try it. Having done that, I have now concluded that it's not what I want. So I'll go back to Aperture in the meantime, and look for some other system that's more suitable, perhaps Affinity? Anyway, I am very disappointed because like several other people writing on these boards, I believe that Aperture is an excellent system, it does everything that I want / need, and it is sad that Apple have decided to do away with it.
I must concur with you that it is a sad reality that Apple felt that had to give up on Aperture. I also discovered that Photos is not the right solution for me and I am researching other third party solutions for my photos.
-
Dec 19, 2015 2:55 PM in response to stullochby Terence Devlin,Even if I move over to some other "external" system such as Lightroom, I will still have lost most of these functions.
Then explore Lightroom. It does a pretty good job of importing the Aperture Library. I did it and am pleased enough with the results - yes there was tidying up to be done. Not everything was perfect, but it is worth a try.
-
Dec 20, 2015 5:44 AM in response to stullochby AFS_BR,Apple did this probably because of commercial issues or an agreement. Aperture was a mature product with a quite smooth maintanance work and absolutely no reason to not be compatible with new O.S. versions.
Why don't you try something different like Phase One Media Pro for organizing stuff ? It's excellent. And for edition, maybe you could try Affinity and DxO. That's what I did and it's working very well, much better than LR and cheaper. I also keep Aperture and will use it until the very last moment it can be run.
Sorry for my English, It's a bit rusted.
-
Dec 20, 2015 7:48 AM in response to AFS_BRby stulloch,Thanks AFS_BR. I'm in the process of looking at Affinity, and although it seems excellent for editing etc., so far I can't see that it does the organising stuff that I need. So I'll be taking a look at some others, and will include Lightroom and Phase One Media Pro in my quest.
-
Dec 20, 2015 11:58 PM in response to stullochby RobbieMeister,With regard to managing assets, from this link I understand that Adobe Bridge is now free to use for all. I don't know much about it nor have I used it recently but if it can be made to link with non-Adobe products it may be useful for those who don't wish to use Lightroom or Photoshop.