Q: Don't give up on Aperture

Go to the App Store and click on the updates. Right click on the El Capitan offer and select to hide this update. It will never show again.

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.

Says you. But yours is not the only experience. And frankly, not only can you get the same things done, you can get other things done too. And guess what, some folks - even after 20 years of using Macs and never more than flirting with the occasional version of PSE - have managed to learn how to use LR without too much stress and strain.  It just takes an open mind and a willingness to learn. Avoid prejudging. Avoid hyperbole, especially anything as old and tired as "telling a happy Mac user to explore Windows." I would encourage anyone to explore Windows. It doesn't hurt you know, and you might learn something along the way. Oh, but of course, that too would take an open mind...

AFS_BR wrote:

 

[Media Pro is] just a management tool. You can use it along with Aperture or whatever you want.

I have never used an digital asset management app. I was just wondering how Media Pro (or any management app) works together with an image editing app that is non-destructive to the original image, such as Aperture. Do edits require exporting from Aperture and importing the adjusted version into Media Pro?  I also assume you cannot adjust more than one image at a time, such as if they all have the same incorrect white balance.  I'm just trying to learn, that's all.

Hi Terence, I usual tend to agree with you but this time I just can't.

As a condition of employment I had to use both Windows and Adobe. Let me say that the best thing I say about either of them is that after I retired, I was able to stop using both of them. I found then to be just a such a pain to use. That was after using them for over 12 years.

Allan

What is it you think I am saying? All I'm saying is that the person should explore the application. Try it out and see for themselves. Sure you don't disagree with that?

Terence Devlin wrote:

 

Allan

 

What is it you think I am saying? All I'm saying is that the person should explore the application. Try it out and see for themselves. Sure you don't disagree with that?

If you would have said it that way the first time, I would not be arguing. I think the part of your first comment that struck me the wrong way was your saying you must have an open mind. That cause me to miss anything about try it out.

Allan Eckert wrote:

 

Terence Devlin wrote:

 

Allan

 

What is it you think I am saying? All I'm saying is that the person should explore the application. Try it out and see for themselves. Sure you don't disagree with that?

If you would have said it that way the first time, I would not be arguing. I think the part of your first comment that struck me the wrong way was your saying you must have an open mind. That cause me to miss anything about try it out.

Yikes. I would have thought, in the context of this discussion, that "try it out" would be a necessary subset of "open mind." Checking out after reading "open mind" is not gonna help anyone get past Aperture.

And as to Mr Devlin's previous comments, he's absolutely right. I realize anyone still participating in this Aperture forum is pretty much a fanboy or very altruistic, but even still it's wise to be open to suggestions here. As he notes, not everyone is into the Win vs Mac nonsense, or even Mac vs iOS, or Aperture vs Lr. They're just tools to get work done. I don't mean to sound all preachy, but the point of this thread was whether to abandon Aperture (before it abandons you), and I would think one thing that has been made clear is that inflexibility in the choice of one's tools, the inability to adapt, is the path to a form of digital extinction. I used Adobe and Win stuff at work too, for a lot longer than 12 years. And I still use, and like, them, depending on what I'm doing.

I went from Lr to Aperture and then back to Lr (quite a long time ago, in fact). It's a fine tool. One might not like it, but there are alternatives, lots of them, many many of which are better in objective ways.

I dunno, but I don't think I'd want to use just Media Pro. Phase One don't seem to be as interested in it as Capture One, which BTW incorporates Media Pro features. CO now includes hierarchical keywords, BTW. I found that CO rather lags in that department compared to Lr, which is head and shoulders better (non exporting keywords, etc). If you are heavy into hierarchies (and I kinda doubt most Aperture users are, since Aperture's implementation was rather lame) then Lr and/or Photo Mechanic are the way to go. Especially Photo Mechanic; with it, and a good command of Spotlight, you can do an awful lot. And perhaps just get along with the Finder, folders, PM and say Affinity Photo.

And to further answer Badunit's question, yes you can use Aperture and say Media Pro. CO has the facility to import Aperture stuff, but it can be as fraught as any other import, like into Lr. Getting the PHOTOS in isn't necessarily too tough (although tougher for users of Aperture's managed, as opposed to referenced, libraries), the key is that you lose your Aperture adjustments. They don't translate; they're not like say an IPTC caption. Aperture is a DAM/PIE, meaning a parametric image editor. It stores INSTRUCTIONS to adjust photos, not a finished photo itself (at least not until you sorta "print" it as an export). Most other apps can't read and make use of those Aperture instructions. I'd suggest looking at Aperture Exporter; it uses a mass export as a way around that.

In Aperture you can reference an image, and do the same in Media Pro. Or Lr, or AfterShot Pro, or even Devonthink. All just point at that original image (and that's all Aperture does even when the files are hidden in a managed library). Since the adjustments are stored within Aperture's database, they don't affect what Media Pro or Graphic Converter or Preview sees. You can write certain metadata to that image file in Aperture (like say GPS, or a keyword); then the other software can reread it and discover the change. But using two managers as primary tools is a pain; using another tool like Media Pro in this way while you transition from Aperture is, IMHO, a better route than just a wholesale switch all at once. YMMV.

AFS_BR wrote:

 

Go to the App Store and click on the updates. Right click on the El Capitan offer and select to hide this update. It will never show again.

Thanks so much for this info.

Wouldn't you think since Apple is supposed to be this very altruistic company that that info would be posted on the update window?

Thank you, Rob, for bringing back some sanity to this thread. I’ve copied your comments for future reference as there are at least two DAM tools I hadn’t heard of yet (Photomechanics and Aftershot, which I shall try). I still use Aperture for DAM (I have over 200,000 shots in hundreds of projects, folders, albums, smart albums and slide shows linked to iTunes); I « work » my RAW files with Capture One 9 (previously 8), using separate catalogues for each major shoot,  and export JPEGS as referenced pictures into Aperture. Obviously, some day Aperture will die and I am waiting for some developer to come out with the right tool for me to make the DAM transition…

MacPhun replied to a mail I sent them and I kind of concluded that they are working on developing such a tool which would plug in to PHOTOS (wishful thinking ?); I’ve purchased their existing plug ins (Black Friday deal was a no brainer) and am convinced that if they ever do this right - say like Adobe is trying with Bridge - PHOTOS should become the way to go, using eventual other software such as Capture One (which I really like - but not as a DAM tool) to work complex RAW files. And who knows, Phase One may be working on a replacement for Media Pro… At least then we would have some serious options.

By the way, regarding Aperture Exporter; I received feedback from the developer - it was not designed to export Aperture to Photos... but to Lighroom (and it also works with Capture One). The tool for importing to Photos is the one to be found within Photos - and it has the issues discussed in the posts somewhere in this thread.

A final comment; I tried getting a petition going to Apple re the demise of Aperture and posted a link on this forum. Apple killed it. So much for Apple hearing our angst...

I also love Aperture and hope that I will be able to continue using it.  It is so much richer than iPhoto or Photos.  I wonder if the push toward iCloud and selling storage space is Apple's real motivator behind dropping Aperture.  I love all my Apple devices and don't intend to go elsewhere, but I wish they would continue to support Aperture.

Aperture, while cheap is not free are, like iPhoto and Photos are. That'll be why there is a difference in quality.

Yes, Photos doesn't even come close to the simplicity and power of Aperture. It's a great loss to millions of users, and our ability to manage and process large numbers of image quickly and efficiently.

Photos is SO DUMBED DOWN it's not even funny.

I'm sticking with Aperture for as long as it works, then probably switch to a non-Apple product such as Adobe Lightroom - if the cost still makes sense.

More money has become the "real motivator" behind most of Apple's product decisions.

Photos is a free product, Aperture was not.

Photos was never meant as a replacement for Aperture. It was a complete v.1.0 reboot of iPhoto, designed from the ground up to be cloud-centric. Apple abandoned Aperture with no intention to replace it. It had too much competition from Adobe, who had great leverage in the creative community with their Creative Suite product line. Meanwhile, Apple was too focused on other products to dedicate the resources necessary to keep Aperture commercially competitive at a scale that would justify use of said resources.

I suspect Aperture's demise also related to the departure of Randy Ubillos from Apple. He was the genius behind both Aperture and Final Cut Pro X. I would be very nervous if my livelihood depended on FCPX right now.

http://appleinsider.com/articles/15/04/23/final-cut-creator-randy-ubillos-leaves -apple-after-20-years

Lightroom has powerful editing capabilities - arguably better than Aperture's in many ways. What it lacks are a) Aperture's DAM prowess and b) its elegant and intuitive user interface and workflows. Like other Adobe products, Lightroom ignores Apple GUI conventions and imposes its own horrendous web-like UI.

Lightroom also lacks any integration with iCloud Photo Library, and doesn't even provide a means to be used as an external editor for Photos. Essentially, adopting Lightroom means accepting Adobe's cloud services instead of Apple's.