Big Sur Does Not Support Photos Library On NAS

I'm not saying you're wrong. I am saying that you've unrealistic expectations for an app at that price point. And even at the Aperture price point ($80 or so) you're still unrealistic. What you want to do is rather more complex that you think it is.

And the price decreased with each new iteration. It finished up on the App Store at about $80. And of course it still works if you never update its operating environment. If you've got a machine still running OS9 I'm sure Claris Works runs just as well as it ever did. But there are real limitations, particularly if you shoot Raw - don't ever buy a new camera, for instance - and hope that machine never develops a fault... But then, if I recall correctly, your usage of Aperture is pretty idiosyncratic.

iTunes Match is not great, it's total rip-off. Everything you put there (to make accessible to all your devices) becomes the property of Apple, but they will only store what is in THEIR library. And, if you ever quit, all your music will be gone FROM YOUR COMPUTER! It's always wise to remember that it's THEIR Cloud--not yours--even if you're paying for it. So, this is why you can't share your photos to your iPhotos. Apple wants to own them, too. It is definitely time to reign in the Oligarchs!

Say what now?

A: you've quite misunderstood what iTunes Match is. Go back and read up on it again.

B: Your music never becomes the property of Apple. Again, you misunderstand.

C: No, your music won't be gone anywhere, and that's doubly true if you have a back up, which you should especially when using apps and services you don't understand.

D: Yes it is their cloud. This is true of every single cloud provider of any service. Unless you're buying a server of your own and hooking it up to the internet, it is always someone else's Cloud. All you - and every body else do - is rent space and services from Apple, or Google, Or Amazon, Or anyone else. Duh. If you don't want to rent the space, then don't. It's not compulsory. Just like iTunes Match. Not compulsory. You don't have to use it.

E: There is no such application as iPhotos, there was an app called iPhoto, which ceased development and was removed from sale more than 5 years ago. Currently there is an app called Photos, and yes you can share your images to it on both Macs and iOS devices. So, not really sure what you're talking about here.

E: Apple does not want to own your photographs. Again you seem to misunderstand the service.

F: That would be rein, as in horse's reins.

I'm wondering if your photos are now transparent so that you can see through them to the pages beneath. Big Sur caused my pages to be somewhat transparent which is horrible. I've tried reducing transparency but still see through them. I wish I had never updated!

jharps1: be careful what you post on this forum - you tend to get shouted at (in bold italic) for your troubles!

In contrast to other responses, I sympathise with your storage size problem. I too have a disk drive problem with over 800GB of photos & videos spread across 5 Libraries and putting them up in the cloud is not feasible.

Apple really needs to think this one through for the professional AND casual photographer. Particularly with 4K video the norm and 8K likely to arrive anytime soon!

Hope you find a workable storage solution.

There was no shouting. There was an effort to emphasise the danger to the person's data from what they are doing. Did it need that emphasis? Well given that the person seemed not have noticed it in the many previous times it was posted, I would say yes. Sympathy is great. Avoiding dataloss is even better.

What is there to rethink? External drives are inexpensive and easy to work with. And frankly, I don't think too many professional photographers are working with a giveaway app like Photos.

Interesting - I paid almost $300 for my Aperture on DVDs. And it still works in 10.12 (Sierra).

Same I actually just got a new time capsule thinking it was still possible .