Photos version 3 and version 4 library incompatability.

I just realised that I cannot copy my Macbook Catalina Photos libraries to my High Sierra iMac and open them with Photos 3. The only solution I found here was to use iCloud as some sort of intermediary between Photos 3 and photos 4. Frankly that's unacceptable. Not everybody is sitting in Cupertino with gigabit broadband. The correct thing to do would have been to keep the libraries compatible or to add a feature to Photos 3 to read the new format - it couldn't have been very difficult.


I've been a programmer, manager and executive in the IT industry since 1976 and I'm disappointed with Apple's support for people running earlier releases of Mac OS on some of their devices. Much as I dislike Microsoft they do offer backward compatibility, as does IBM...... since 1964.


Have you anyway around this that doesn't involve uploading gigabytes and gigabytes of date to iCloud?

Posted on Jul 31, 2020 6:09 AM

Reply
Question marked as Top-ranking reply

Posted on Aug 11, 2020 10:21 AM

We have Mac computers from 2008 (OS 10.11) thru 2019 (OS 10.15) here with others in between (10.12, 10.14 ...) and have dealt with the iPhoto => Photos version compatibility challenges for some time. The latest change to Photos I feel was not value added, because the loss of the Masters internal folder which had all photos with their original names (from the camera) and ordered in folders by date was helpful, in the previous version. Now the naming and ordering is not discernible, it is hidden in a data base file. My daughter, a professional photographer, used to use Photos as a storage/repository for the original raw photos off the camera cards, she would then easily scan through them and do her serious work with them in Lightroom. Well, no more, now she has abandoned Photos as the raw storage repository because the tools she was using to parse the image folders to feed into Lightroom can't parse the new unfathomable folder structure. Instead she just uses Image Capture with the camera cards and puts the raw images into finder folders that she has logically named by date just like iPhoto and Photos used to.


With the previous internal folder structure, I think there was a chance for both forwards and backwards compatibility with Photos, but now of course older OS's cannot read the new Photos libraries. This is disappointing and in some cases inconvenient, but not surprising to me. After all, older versions of MS-Office, Adobe programs and many other tools eventually lose the ability to read the newest program files.


My only suggestions for working with Photos in High Sierra and with Catalina, assuming you cannot make use of the iCloud sync process due to bandwidth:


(1) Make the Catalina Photos library your working library and periodically "export" all the photos out, then reimport them into a Photos Library for High Sierra. Time consuming and inconvenient, at best. And you lose some customizations.

(2) Make the High Sierra Photos library your working library and periodically duplicate it so that Catalina Photos can work with that duplicate library. But this is also time consuming and inconvenient because then Catalina Photos has to go thru its "cataloguing, sorting ..." process every time you do this.

(3) Neither of (1) or (2) offers a convenient way to synchronize changes made to these now two separate libraries.

(4) Look for a different tool from Photos that will work across the 10.12 to 10.15 operating systems using the same data base. For example, I believe one of the versions of Lightroom Classic runs on both these platforms with the same data base. Lightroom is not free like Photos is, but it is not very expensive either and the license allows for it to be on two computers.


I don't know why Apple did this to the latest Photos. It's Apple's prerogative, but I think most consumers simply use Photos to store their photos and get rid of red eye, and maybe do some simple editing, cropping, lighting adjustment, etc. I don't know why the data base had to change so dramatically -- that's what has led to the lack of compatibility between versions.

Similar questions

39 replies
Question marked as Top-ranking reply

Aug 11, 2020 10:21 AM in response to ScullyJC

We have Mac computers from 2008 (OS 10.11) thru 2019 (OS 10.15) here with others in between (10.12, 10.14 ...) and have dealt with the iPhoto => Photos version compatibility challenges for some time. The latest change to Photos I feel was not value added, because the loss of the Masters internal folder which had all photos with their original names (from the camera) and ordered in folders by date was helpful, in the previous version. Now the naming and ordering is not discernible, it is hidden in a data base file. My daughter, a professional photographer, used to use Photos as a storage/repository for the original raw photos off the camera cards, she would then easily scan through them and do her serious work with them in Lightroom. Well, no more, now she has abandoned Photos as the raw storage repository because the tools she was using to parse the image folders to feed into Lightroom can't parse the new unfathomable folder structure. Instead she just uses Image Capture with the camera cards and puts the raw images into finder folders that she has logically named by date just like iPhoto and Photos used to.


With the previous internal folder structure, I think there was a chance for both forwards and backwards compatibility with Photos, but now of course older OS's cannot read the new Photos libraries. This is disappointing and in some cases inconvenient, but not surprising to me. After all, older versions of MS-Office, Adobe programs and many other tools eventually lose the ability to read the newest program files.


My only suggestions for working with Photos in High Sierra and with Catalina, assuming you cannot make use of the iCloud sync process due to bandwidth:


(1) Make the Catalina Photos library your working library and periodically "export" all the photos out, then reimport them into a Photos Library for High Sierra. Time consuming and inconvenient, at best. And you lose some customizations.

(2) Make the High Sierra Photos library your working library and periodically duplicate it so that Catalina Photos can work with that duplicate library. But this is also time consuming and inconvenient because then Catalina Photos has to go thru its "cataloguing, sorting ..." process every time you do this.

(3) Neither of (1) or (2) offers a convenient way to synchronize changes made to these now two separate libraries.

(4) Look for a different tool from Photos that will work across the 10.12 to 10.15 operating systems using the same data base. For example, I believe one of the versions of Lightroom Classic runs on both these platforms with the same data base. Lightroom is not free like Photos is, but it is not very expensive either and the license allows for it to be on two computers.


I don't know why Apple did this to the latest Photos. It's Apple's prerogative, but I think most consumers simply use Photos to store their photos and get rid of red eye, and maybe do some simple editing, cropping, lighting adjustment, etc. I don't know why the data base had to change so dramatically -- that's what has led to the lack of compatibility between versions.

Aug 9, 2020 10:48 AM in response to ScullyJC

Sigh.


the App may use new features of the OS and not be able to run on previous versions but old versions of the App should run on new versions of the OS, including their file access method. That's backward compatibility.


On this we will disagree I'm sure, but no developer of anything in the computer world promises forwards compatibility which is what you're describing. Backwards compatibility means that Newer versions of an app can (and here's a hint for you) look backwards to older versions and read the data. That way, older data is not trapped by updates. So, never versions of Word can read older .doc files, but older versions of Word cannot read .docx files.


I think we can take this:


who is Capture one, some man a dog outfit?


as a general indication of the state of your knowledge and experience in the area. That and your apparent inability to even use a search engine tells us enough to allow us to evaluate everything else you have to say.


Hope you're still enjoying the eggs.

Aug 9, 2020 12:30 PM in response to Yer_Man

No Terence, you don't understand backwards compatibility. I would have though you could have Googled it. Listen carefully and I'll explain it, but only once.


In the olden days when only clever people were IT "experts" there were a bunch of manufactures (Burroughs, UNIVAC, NCR, Control Data and Honeywell, hence the acronym) competing with IBM. IBM realised that having to redevelop your applications every time the OS or hardware changed was wasteful and pain for customers. So, they committed, unlike the others, to backwards capability. Which was that an application developed for an IBM/360 would run on an IBM/370, 30XX, 43XX etc. etc. through multiple OS releases of MVS, Dos/VSE, VM/370. Etc. That meant that a customer's investment in software was secure. Large installations could have the same application run across multiple generations of OS ( and indeed multipale OSs) across multiple generations of hardware. Simples.


Apple have chosen to not bother their (very wealthy) barney to make a small investment to allow Photos 3 and Photos 4 users to share the same Library. This could have be achieve very simply, but they didn't bother. This sort of arrogance has spelt the decline of quite a few tech companies.


That's all I'll say on this because you obviously don't understand and life's too short.


BTW p, I think Adobe is a Micky Mouse organisation let alone the other crowd you mentioned. Apple is a MAJOR manufacturer and has responsibilities over an above niche software houses.


Anyway good luck and goodbye.


BTW, how would anybody implement forwards compatibility, using a crystal ball? LOL.

Aug 1, 2020 6:16 AM in response to léonie

Keith also wrote:


Nope, Photos is not backwards compatible


And you wrote:


None of Apple's Photo applications has ever been backward compatible, not even Aperture...


Whereas they all have been backwards compatible. This


Photos 5 can open any photo library from Photos 1 to Photo 5, even every Aperture library, and iPhoto 8.xx or 9.xx.


Is backwards compatibility.


This


Apple would have to release an update for all oder system version, so the older Photos.apps can read the new databases.


would make the older versions forward compatible.


This:


It has been much easier to share a photo library across platforms with different system versions, if the photo application is compatible with more than one system version.


is very true. Photos is a good app for quite a specific set of circumstances. It just doesn't deal with complex arrangements at all well.

Aug 13, 2020 8:15 AM in response to Yer_Man

Yes Terry, it what you have been saying all along but you are getting mixed up Son. New releases of Word will open prior version's documents and prior versions of Word can still access those documents subsequently, that is backwards compatibility. Photos 4 will only convert Photos 3 libraries to its own new file format thus preventing Phots e from accessing them.


If you were sitting down today to write an application how could you possibly include code to access future, currently unknown file formats? Nor when new versions of your software were released with new file structures could you be expected to retrofit code to all the previous versions of your application to access the new format. Backward compatibility is that the new versions of your software can not only use its own new file access method (if any) but also to access previous version's files. That way all the application versions on all the platforms can access all the data. QED It is all about protecting the customers investment. It's obvious and is has been a design feature of serious S/W since around since 1964. That's really the last I have to say on that topic Terry, if you don't mind.


My other point was that Apple's willingness to dump Photos 3 users show a trend. I'm trying to do a clean install of High Sierra on my iMac, which doesn't have high speed internet access. It's a nightmare. I've taken both my High Sierra and my Catalina MacBooks to a location where I can access broadband and trying to download the High Sierra installer has been very difficult. Googling the problem shows I am not alone in having this issue - the download has just stalled again as I type.


My assessment is Apple is no longer a serious IT company, it is a fashion company which is only interested in the latest big thing. Given that it's phones, tablets, music and IOS apps that really drive the business now I suppose that was inevitable. But if they think I'm going to upgrade my fully loaded 27" iMac and MacBook pros every couple of years as one would a $1,000 iPhone or iPad they have another thing coming. I don't think I will be the only one thinking this way. I dislike MS S/W too much to revert but Linux is looking better to me every day, and the support is actually better than Apple's.

Aug 1, 2020 3:43 AM in response to Yer_Man

Keith wrote "iPhoto 9.6.1 lasted so long over so many Os' it just seemed backwards compatible. 8^)", not "has been" 😊


It is funny, but I never fully appreciated the benefits of an app that is not a part of the system and is not updated with each system version. It has been much easier to share a photo library across platforms with different system versions, if the photo application is compatible with more than one system version.

Aug 1, 2020 2:56 PM in response to léonie

Hi, thanks for your response.


I don't particularly care what the new Photos library index and file format is, it should have taken into account the existence of earlier version of Photos. It wouldn't take a competent coder any time to write an subroutine to access the new format but Apple didn't bother. Only a charlatan would think they can start with a blank page for each release. Furthermore you obviously have no idea how poor the internet speeds the vast majority of the World has to cope with. Uploading gigs and gigs of data is not an option for millions of people. Copying a library from one device to another is.

Aug 1, 2020 3:20 PM in response to Yer_Man

Really Terry, a new version of an application modifies its DB so it can't be read by an ealier version, on, for example of shared drive? No Son, you don't understand backwards compatabiluty. But that doesn't matter. What matters is the Photos development team didn't care - IMO that's poor development and poor customer service, no matter what anybody says. And as somebody posted above, I suspect a product you paid for wouldn't have dumped it's users in such a manner. This is arrogance dressed up as progress. A small update to earlier versions could have fixed the issue. It's not rocket science.

Aug 2, 2020 12:44 AM in response to ScullyJC

I suspect a product you paid for wouldn't have dumped it's users in such a manner.


Obviously you're not familiar with Lightroom Classic, CaptureOne etc etc. All of which are, like Photos, perfectly backwards compatible.


Come on stop trying to defend the indefensible.


Ah, I see. You have comprehension issues. If you read what I wrote carefully you'll see I did exactly the opposite of what you think.



Aug 2, 2020 4:52 AM in response to Yer_Man

Of course I'm not familiar with "Lightroom Classic, CaptureOne etc etc." Terry. That's why I wrote "suspect" and anyway, I thought Apple had an application, Photos.


Answer my simple question, do you not think is a fair requirement to be able to use a large photos library on an external drive on multiple machines running different releases of an operating system? I do. What's more I think adding in support for the Photos 4 file structure etc. would have been a relatively trivial and inexpensive exercise.


I'm afraid it's Apple playing fast and loose with its customers and that isn't sustainable over the long term.

Aug 2, 2020 9:44 AM in response to Keith Barkley

"This issue does not come up all that often"...... Yes Keith, I can imaging that. Single users on single machines won't worry about it and professional users will just replace their H/W to run the latest OS version. It's the inbetweenies like me that are affected. A pity. Nevertheless, IMO tying an application so closely to a OS version is bad design and rather disappointing. It's the opposite of what best practice would call for.

Aug 2, 2020 9:57 AM in response to ScullyJC

Of course I'm not familiar with "Lightroom Classic, CaptureOne etc etc." Terry. That's why I wrote "suspect" ...


I was merely pointing out that other - paid for - applications are not like you suspect. I will say this, for a guy with so much experience of the IT industry, you seem well equipped with opinions but lacking in information.


and anyway, I thought Apple had an application, Photos.


I congratulate you on your powers of observation.


Answer my simple question, do you not think is a fair requirement to be able to use a large photos library on an external drive on multiple machines running different releases of an operating system?


Different versions of the OS? Sure. Different versions of the App, no I don't think that's reasonable - especially when the upgrade cost is zero. Remember Photos is a freebie, a giveaway. You get exactly what you pay for.


What's more I think adding in support for the Photos 4 file structure etc. would have been a relatively trivial and inexpensive exercise.


Well I don't have your experience in the IT industry, being only an ordinary mortal, but even I know the reason Windows got to be like that was the massive amounts of legacy code it had to carry. The MacOS and the apps strive to be lean and not carry legacy code. Simplicity, you see. As for your opinion on the cost and effort, well we're back to that opinion/information thing, I'm afraid.


I'm afraid it's Apple playing fast and loose with its customers


Apple are working exactly like every other operator in the area: Adobe, CaptureOne etc etc, and have worked this way since the arrival of iPhoto back in 2002. So very much to the industry standard.


and that isn't sustainable over the long term.


And that made me laugh. Thanks.




Aug 9, 2020 10:27 AM in response to Yer_Man

Whatever.


"Different versions of the OS? Sure. Different versions of the App, no I don't think that's reasonable - especially when the upgrade cost is zero. Remember Photos is a freebie, a giveaway. You get exactly what you pay for"


That's both naive and insulting. Naive because the the App may use new features of the OS and not be able to run on previous versions but old versions of the App should run on new versions of the OS, including their file access method. That's backward compatibility. Maybe Apple don't offer this but that's insulting to their user base. Plus, nothing is free. The cost of Photos is just bundled.


It's sloppy and just because other one trick ponies (who is Capture one, some man a dog outfit?) do it is no excuse for a major manufacturer to do it.


But, there you go, just roll over.



This thread has been closed by the system or the community team. You may vote for any posts you find helpful, or search the Community for additional answers.

Photos version 3 and version 4 library incompatability.

Welcome to Apple Support Community
A forum where Apple customers help each other with their products. Get started with your Apple Account.