Q: Don't give up on Aperture

Thanks for that, I'll take a look at that one also.

RobbieMeister wrote:

 

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.

 

http://prodesigntools.com/free-adobe-bridge-cc.html

.....The main problem with Adobe Bridge is that if you have other Adobe apps installed it will open your files in that app by default.

I don't think that Bridge is as powerful as Media Pro by Phase One so I would advise checking out Media Pro - There is a free 30-day trial downloadable. [And no, I do not work for them!]

Here is a link to a comprehensive overview video :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsVNq6DKlMg

I think Apple have made a fundamental mistake in getting rid of Aperture and going for an inferior system.

Apple didn't replace Aperture with an inferior system. They always had two applications for photo management: iPhoto and Aperture. They replaced iPhoto with Photos, and the foundation is there for Photos to supersede iPhoto's original capabilities.

On the other hand they simply abandoned Aperture. So it's not a matter of switching to an inferior system but simply of abandoning all of their pro users.

so does anyone know if I can convert back to Aperture?

I'm long past the point where I would trust Apple with any such "migration." I tested using a small dummy library and instantly realized Photos was useless. As I understand it, though, Photos is not supposed to touch your Aperture Library, only reference it so its content can be viewed from within Photos.

I must concur with you that it is a sad reality that Apple felt that had to give up on Aperture.

I suspect that Apple's abandonment of Aperture may have had something to do with to the retirement of Randy Ubillos, who designed Aperture, iMovie, and Final Cut pro X. With Ubillos gone, there probably wasn't anyone left in the executive ranks willing to champion pro photo users. So they likely saw his departure as an opportunity to get rid of yet another popular product that wasn't contributing enough to their bottom line.

Make no mistake - the bean counters are firmly in charge of Apple now.

Then explore Lightroom.

I don't think it's right to send someone off on a wild goose chase with Lightroom without clarifying that it's not remotely comparable to Aperture. Lightroom offers a comprehensive suite of image processing tools, some of which arguably produce marginally better results than Aperture's corresponding tools. If you already live in the Adobe ecosystem, then using Lightroom is probably a no-brainer since it shares the same interface conventions as the rest of their suite of apps.

But Lightroom does not offer remotely the same image management features or workflows as Aperture, nor will it import an Aperture library with its organization and lossless edits intact. If you love Adobe products, then you will probably like Lightroom. However if you hate Adobe's crusty, laggy, inefficient, and unintuitive interfaces that were never designed for Mac users, then you will not like Lightroom.

Going from Aperture to Lightroom will feel a lot like switching from a Mac to Windows.

I would advise checking out Media Pro

Let's compare user interfaces, shall we?

Aperture

(this is actually an a screenshot from an older version, but it still serves its purpose)

Media Pro

My eyes are bleeding.

Well given your measured and calm characterisation of LR, (which doesn’t sound remotely over-the-top at all, not even slightly...) I'll just offer that - in my experience - LR is weaker on workflow, definitely, however, it not only matches Aperture in most management features, it actually exceeds it in some. However, I speak as one who has been only using Macs for 20 years and LR for 6 months, so what do I know. On the broader question, i suggested that the person explore Lightroom - you know, check it out and then make up their own mind... It's not a perfect solution, none is. But it can work for some

It's really easy telling people what not to do. Just less useful in the long run.

Once again, telling a happy Aperture user to explore Lightroom is like telling a happy Mac user to explore Windows.

Can you get the same things done? Sure. But if you're grown to love and appreciate a well-designed, Mac-native application you're in for some serious disappointment when you switch to Adobe's one-size-fits-all, everything-but-the-kichen-sink approach to workflows and user interface design.

LOL ! MEdia pro is really different but believe-me it's extremely powerful when doing its job. Far more than Aperture, specialy if you use hierarchical keywords, but some cool Aperture features are missing, like stacks. And it runs on Windows and Mac if you need. It can handle huge photo sets in a blink of an eye. It wipes the floor with LR organizer.

I was a heavy user of the Adobe family, since 1995 and gave up two years ago. The only Adobe software I still have installed is Elements 11 and just because of some plugins that still don't work with Affinity.

MEdia pro is really different but believe-me it's extremely powerful when doing its job

You just don't get it. Aperture's appeal goes far beyond its "power". It's all about it's elegant design and intuitive workflows. Aperture is a delight to use. You can't say that about any Adobe products or any of the alternatives to aperture cited here. I actually enjoy managing my image library in Aperture. Performing the same tasks in Lightroom or Media Pro would not be enjoyable. It would feel like work.

Adobe products are enormously powerful, but they are neither intuitive nor elegant. Over the years I've used Photoshop on many occasions to get something done, but inevitably when I return to the app after some period of non-use, everything feels foreign to me and I need to "re-learn" what I already knew how to do before. Why? Because its user interface and workflows are so obtuse and poorly designed.

This topic sounds a lot like folks claiming their Android device has more storage space and a faster processor than an iPhone, oblivious to the real reasons why the latter has such a loyal customer base.

Of course I understood. I still use Aperture and will continue to use it even if Apple prevents it to run on the next OS. I have it installed in a separate partition running on Yosemite and Mavericks. It's a very well designed program with superb interface and it's fast like few other ones.

But Aperture has a big flaw. It's hierarchical keywords mechanism really *****. It's linear, not hierarchical. The way Media Pro does it is simply perfect.

[Aperture']s hierarchical keywords mechanism really *****. It's linear, not hierarchical

I mainly use Project and Album titles to identify and locate images by topic/event. I also rely on face recognition and geolocation to find images Adding tags to every photo would be a bit pointless for my needs.

I don't use Aperture's keyword feature, and I agree they're not one of its best designed features. But to me, that's like choosing a Pontiac Aztec over a BMW because of the cup holders.

It depends on what you do. For me Editing AND tagging are extremely important things.

Red Robin wrote:

 

RobbieMeister wrote:

 

I would advise checking out Media Pro - There is a free 30-day trial downloadable.

 

Can you give us some idea of how Media Pro integrates with Aperture? For instance, Can I import whole libraries? Can I import images which have been edited in Aperture to Media Pro without losing those edits? How does it handle Aperture key-wording? Can I still use Photoshop and my Nik and Topaz plugins from within Media Pro?

Jerry

It depends on what you do. For me Editing AND tagging are extremely important things.

But then Aperture was never a particularly suitable app for your needs, given it never established itself as a leader in those areas.

It's claim to fame was providing more advanced users with an elegant way to import and manage their images, while also providing decent and easy to use tools for image correction and optimization. It allowed users to apply extensive edits and modifications to images in a lossless fashion without wasting disk space by creating multiple copies of the same images.  It intelligently created smaller versions of huge RAW images so that a vast library could be browsed very quickly and smoothly, while retaining the original images for when a high resolution copy was needed. It never confused the user by displaying both RAW and jpg versions of the same image. It was highly customizable and configurable to meet the needs and preferences of different users. It also had what used to be great tools for sharing images both online and via printed books.

These things, in addition to the elegant/intuitive interface, are what endeared Aperture to its most loyal users, and they are absent in competing products.