Replacement for Aperture DAM features beyond Mojave

Apple are the only ones who made those managed libraries in packages. So, iPhoto, Aperture and Photos are the only ones.

I think most folks went from Aperture to Lightroom Classic. But you don't have to store the masters apart from the Library. They can be in the same folder on the same disk. So quite possible to have self-contained collections on multiple disks.

As for other apps: again, none with a specifically managed libraries feature, but with the possibility of multiple libraries with the masters stored in the same folder, CaptureOne is not as good a DAM as LRC, but might suit you. Mylio is surprisingly powerful and wears its power lightly. On One PhotoRaw is relies less on a database but uses many a million sidecar files. Exposure 7 is closer to LRC. PhotoSupreme is a pure DAM virtually no editing features at all.

You might want to check out Peakto

https://cyme.io/peakto-photo-organizer-software/

which allows to peek into Aperture libraries in read-only-mode.

If you still have some legacy catalogs (Aperture, iViewMedia,…), Peakto does not leave you on the side of the road. Quite on the contrary.

Peakto lets you view, navigate, search through all the photo material you stored in Aperture and iViewMedia. Peakto sees all the metadata that were attached to those images.

Thus, Peakto opens the door of the latest macOS versions, including Ventura in the Fall and the latest app hardware (M1, M2,…) to your precious collections.

The app is continuously developing, recently gained a map view, albums, smart albums, folders for albums, and will soon provide tight integration with Pixelmator pro for pixel editing, face recognition, and allow metadata annotations in the Peakto catalog database. Here is the roadmap:

https://trello.com/b/yx5ePR2u/peakto-public-roadmap

Oh, and no plans for a Windows-version, which typically would spoil the Mac user experience.

I'm looking forward to use Peakto as an Aperture replacement, should I run out of old iMacs capable of running Aperture on Mojave.

so I could keep my Aplibraries, PeakTo into them and if warranted use CYME's Avalanche to convert for import to LRC?

Peakto is $99 p.a. and Avalanche for LRC is $59. Why not just use Avalanche to move everything to LRC and then weed out your duds from there? Save $99...

CaptureOne supports both managed and referenced catalogs (libraries). See https://support.captureone.com/hc/en-us/articles/360002669977-What-is-the-difference-between-a-referenced-and-a-managed-Catalog-

And FWIW, I use CaptureOne and have found its DAM functions to be quite good. I'm very pleased with its cataloging functions and its editing capabilities and the past few releases have really upped the ante vs. LR and PS. While it's not identical to Aperture's DAM it's very close. Lightroom left me feeling 'meh' when I evaluated alternatives to Aperture and it still does.

That said, I have never liked the idea of managed libraries (catalogs). IMHO it puts all your images at greater risk because they are all contained in a single point of failure (the library). A tiny corruption and all your images are gone. Not the case with a referenced library. It also means that your library (catalog) can grow to enormous size. Further example - Photos does strange things in its library such as renaming images with UUIDs and using its database to store the actual file names. If you ever had to go inside a Photos library to retrieve original images you'd get a migraine trying to figure out what each image file actually is. The only way to recover the original file names is via export and hope the database hasn't accumulated any errors.

Lightroom left me feeling 'meh' when I evaluated alternatives to Aperture and it still does.

What works for you is entirely good for you. I do like the results I get from LRC in the main, but where I find LRC very powerful is as a hub for a whole lot of other apps. If, for instance, I'm not happy with the results I get in LRC I can round trip the raw across to DxO PL6 and get an adjusted DNG or Tiff as I prefer. And for price, I'm afraid there is no competition between the two, and as a manager I do believe CO has a way to go. But if CO is what you prefer, it is certainly an excellent app.

That said, I have never liked the idea of managed libraries (catalogs). IMHO it puts all your images at greater risk because they are all contained in a single point of failure (the library). A tiny corruption and all your images are gone. Not the case with a referenced library.

I'm not sure this is actually true. A managed library is a lot of photographs in a folder. A referenced library is a lot of photographs in a folder. The only difference is the icon. A Folder containing your raws/masters is just a susceptible to this tiny corruption as a package, which is functionally identical.

Further example - Photos does strange things in its library such as renaming images with UUIDs and using its database to store the actual file names. If you ever had to go inside a Photos library to retrieve original images you'd get a migraine trying to figure out what each image file actually is. The only way to recover the original file names is via export and hope the database hasn't accumulated any errors.

This I completely agree with and it alone is why I really don't recommend the app to anyone.

Good discussion, good points.

The only thing I'd add right now is that a managed library aka "package" is 1 ) a folder masquerading as a file that is treated as a single file by the Finder and 2) all your original images are managed by & dependent on the controlling application. Not so with a normal folder even when it contains subfolders. Further, copying a managed library via the Finder for backup purposes necessitates a full copy every time. With original images in a referenced library (that is, in folders on disk), incremental backups can be done fairly easily.

1 ) a folder masquerading as a file that is treated as a single file by the Finder and 2) all your original images are managed by & dependent on the controlling application.

Not quite accurate. It appears as a single file, but can be accessed by a simple right click. The images are no more dependent on the controlling application than they are in a folder. I (un)happily agree this is certainly the case in recent versions of Photos, however, with the renaming of files.

Unless you mean, of course, that you cannot manage the files with another app - but why would you want to use two apps to manage your photographs - why would you use two contact books? It only adds pointless duplication. Or do you mean that other editors cannot access the images except via the manager? This is true, but then if you don't go via the manager, how will it know you edited?

Further, copying a managed library via the Finder for backup purposes necessitates a full copy every time. With original images in a referenced library (that is, in folders on disk), incremental backups can be done fairly easily.

Incremental backups are effortless in either case using any mildly capable back up app. And safer than simple Finder copies too.

It is swings and roundabouts, but the package has the advantage of protecting the library from dataloss caused by the inexperienced user. For the experienced user it might be a minor inconvenience.

Interesting option. However, I don't see the value of paying $100 p.a. to see into the LRC, Capture One et al catalogues, when you're already paying for those apps. Or am I missing something?