Aperture Phase Out, Lightroom Migration?

it might be useful to use DNG files. Aperture reads this semi-open version of RAW files, and LR creates them.

Be careful - Aperture does not read all DNG files, see the footnote: http://www.apple.com/aperture/specs/raw.html

Aperture also lets you work with most DNG files.1

Aperture works with most DNG files generated from cameras that support this format and with DNG files generated by the Adobe DNG Converter with the “Convert to Linear Image” option turned off.

Originally I had decided to start teaching myself LR and prepare for migration, but I have looked at the screen shots and watched the presentation video on Photos. My strategy will wait for Photos to be released to evaluate it's capabilities before making an effort to transition to LR. My reasons are intuitive, but the screen shoot contained a reasonable fraction of the Aperture editing tools (arranged slightly differently) so there is a reasonable probability that Photos birth will actually offer an even better solution for pros than Aperture. Aperture is long in the tooth and I suspect patching it to work with more modern imaging technologies was a difficult problem. A clean break was the best way to go.

The bigger concern for pro photographers should be the power of Photos editing capability. The video left me with the impression that Apple is setting Photos editing tools not too dissimilar to what lots of pros do on pictures so the non-pro can quickly mimic the pros efforts. Your (pro photographer) skills have been cloned into Photos.

For me, I will be looking at the DAM capabilities, the current Aperture editing capabilities, but more importantly evidence of extensibility beyond Aperture with new and exciting Apps. It is the last point that will separate the pros from the amateurs.

Just a thought.

A lot of people seem to be missing an important point. Although there is no expectation that Photos will replicate Aperture's pro-level editing abilities natively, much less LR's, it appears that it is being designed from the ground up to be much more friendly to plug-ins. Specifically, I expect it to allow non-destructive editing of RAW rather than the clunky TIFF route that Aperture now takes, and therefore to optionally use alternate RAW converters. This may satisfy a large part of the wishlist we have all been expressing for "Aperture 4".

To me, the two main reasons I won't migrate to LR are the CC pricing model, and the inferior file management system. If Photos maintains a compatible file structure and allows non-destructive RAW editing with pro-level plugins, it may yet be our best migration path.

I do wish Apple would spin off Aperture to another company though.

Hi

I agree, for me the following point seems to be obvious:

1) Photo will not be in line with all Aperture functions, as Apple it self during show is mentioning Ligthroom.

2) The cloud model of Photo could be not in line with the needs of serious photographer and professionals

3) The adobe model for software rental is not my favor way

4) Today is it still possible to buy a standalone LR version for 128€, even if we do not know, how longer this version will be availble

5) Many of Aperture plug ins (fotomagico, HDR) that I bought are LR compatible.

For theses reasons and with a lot of uncertainty, I think to buy the stand alone LR5 pgm (not the cloud one)

start to use LR with new photos and keep Aperture for old ones.

Meaning keep the 2 software and wait a future conversion path from Abode in orde to transfert adjustments into LR and reduce the lost.

Thanks for comments BR Richard

Sadly, I doubt LR will ever offer conversion of adjustments to LR on any meaningful scale; maybe someone else will. Or maybe it will be a path from Aperture to Photos and then to LR. No one knows.

And there's no way Apple would spin off Aperture (and if they did, it might go the way of the Claris applications). It'd be like competing with themselves. Not to mention whatever tech and proprietary info they own in it they want to continue to use.

And I'm curious about the "file management" in Aperture. I stopped using it in part because the only file management it did was through "Relocate originals..." through a dialog box, and of course finding lost originals. Did I miss something?

What I like about Aperture file management is that by default it stores all files in a hierarchical structure based on year/month/day of capture (just like my cameras). All very linear and predictable. Then, within an Aperture session itself, one can organize by Project, Folder, Album, Smart Album, etc, that is like storing by subject but is only linking in the background to that aforementioned date structure. I far prefer this "virtual file system" to actually hard-wiring file location by subject in a subjective manner that may be difficult to remember or replicate later. Yes, I know many programs have key words or similar to help find photos, but that is more work and less reliable. I am hoping Photos will persist with this model. And yes, I do like and utilize the ability to switch between managed and referenced photos.

I will wait to see what Photos brings before deciding. No alternative really grabs me at this stage: LR for the reasons I mentioned previously; Corel After Shot Pro because it does not support my most used camera (Pentax K3); Capture 1 Pro because it doesn't support my aspirational future upgrade path (Pentax 645D/Z); onOne Perfect Suite since the stand-alone version still doesn't seem fully developed to me. No rush; Aperture still works.

And I'm curious about the "file management" in Aperture. I stopped using it in part because the only file management it did was through "Relocate originals..." through a dialog box, and of course finding lost originals. Did I miss something?

I think we can safely say that yes, you did.

Care are to share Mr. Devlin? Or just take another chance to insult me? I'm sorry you're defensive but I actually would like to know how to manage the files in Aperture.

Hi Rob,

I have about 300,000 images stored in the Aperture system. Some are scanned going back to the 1900, but most date from 2001 forward. If someone describes a picture of mine, I can usually find it in 15-30 minutes, including the original file.

Everyone once in a while an image will get corrupted (maybe 10 times, not related to Aperture but to the drive). I can find the backup or archived copy to replace the original also in about 15 minutes.

Guess I find it confusing what you don't understand about the merits of the Aperture file management system.

Hallo There.

I might be wrong,but if you don't upgrade to the new OS there should be no trouble.Also;one could use one computer for Aperture only and an other one for

OS X Yosemite.John Basso.

Insult you? Not my intention. I thought to pedantically spell out the file management capabilities of Aperture would have been more insulting as they are so obvious. But here goes - a non exhaustive list:

Import from camera/devices and move the files wherever you want, renaming the files as you go, into whatever file structure you want.

Delete the files from same, when deleting from Aperture - or not.

Relocate the Masters to where ever at any time. Re-attach disconnected masters.

You know, all the basic features of file management. There's a lot on this in the manual too.

John

Apple have said that Aperture will be update for Yosemite.

Hi

I saw an interesting stuff on youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fggWxBr-EuE

it show a way to transfert Aperture lib to LR, you can keep adjustment, but only the final and the initial master.

It seems very simple and must be seen...

about the debate, Yes Aperture will be compatible Yosemite, meaning we have enough time to see the best ways to migrate to LR

I wants to keep both pgm active (Aperture for old photo) and LR for new ones.

I assume also that "photo apps" will never cope with needs from advance aperture users.

Any way, our community, need to ask apple to be more clear ASAP.

BR Richard

I guess I fall in to the "hedge your bets" camp. I have 5 TB of images in Aperture and I doubt I will take the time to move them into another program. Aperture will always work as an archival system so I can find any image I want. But with the demise of Aperture, I am going to have to learn something new at some point. In the future it may be Photos. But for now I am enjoying the challenge of learning LR5. Yes the Library system for me is not as intuitive as Aperture but it is workable. I think the Development module is quite strong and has several improvements over Aperture. With NIK plug-ins added I am sure I can "make do".

When I download images I still create projects in Aperture and will sometimes work images there. But I am also downloading images in LR and creating a Library structure there. Both sides will be covered with minimal extra work and I am learning a new system, which can't hurt.

It will take some time for Photos to mature, and I doubt Apple will abandon the Pro/enthusiast photographer. The new platform may be terrific.

At the same time I doubt Adobe will be standing still. At some point I hope to master LR. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me, to improve on my Aperture skills (it is the only system I have used since 2007), but I will stay current with Apple's developments. May the best platform win!

One side note, I have decided to dump my Vaults to create more back up space. I doubt they will ever be useful in the future (and may never have been) and multiple Library backups are just as safe, (I have always kept yearly Libraries).

If you are comfortable with the wait and see approach, I doubt much will be lost. If you are fed up with Apple, switch to a new program and don't look back. But if you just have nervous energy, like I often do, learn something new so you can flop either way if necessary.

"1) Export "originals", and lose person-months of editing.

2) Export as JPEGS and lose ability to further edit them."

Those months are a sunk cost. Whether you export to jpeg's or not, how often do we go back and re-edit work that was done years ago.

I've gone from Aperture to Lightroom (for camera support for 2 years) and back to Aperture. There were perhaps 100 images I considered my best and redid them in Lightroom. They all came out better. Lightroom is a better editor than Aperture. That's reality and for those images you may consider important to you, a trip outside Aperture may be very desirable. Lightroom's interface may have been designed by someone forced to live in a cave filled with junk as a child and it certainly runs slower on a Mac than Aperture, though you do get a nostalgic feeling you're in some time-warp where gui's were complex and poorly laid out. However, its got a great editor. Way simpler to use than C1, more stable and faster. For DAM its cumbersome and just plain ugly, but it delivers what Aperture offers, just in a different way.

As I have 2 years experience with Lightroom, I recently left on a 4 month international trip with LR 5.5 loaded. After a couple of weeks of processing in Aperture I reprocessed the same images in LR. Obviously a lot of personal subjectivity comes in here but I felt for the great majority of my images, the LR edits were better. Truer colors, better control of highlights and shadows, way better noise reduction on some night shots.

I have no idea what the new Photos app will look like in terms of DAM or editing tools and capability. But I'm certainly not shedding a tear that Apple is finally putting Aperture to pasture. Given even iPhoto can't deal with Aperture edits (the restore original button), I certainly don't believe we'll see that capability in the Photos app.