Replacement to Aperture

Aperture is not being replaced, just dropped.

Aperture users are just being told to F off we don't care about you.

That pile of Facebook poo they laughingly say is a replacement is for iPhone photographers. Nothing remotely professional about it. The best professional DAM/editing program is being flushed down the toilet for the social media brigade to easily show My Wedding, My Holiday, My Night out smart phone snaps.

This Apple has got a nasty worm in it, I would like to think there are people with influence that can kill the thing, but I doubt it. The alternatives are starting to look a better option and I thought they were crap before, Apple has just promoted the competition by throwing in the towel.

Is Lightroom better than Aperture?

Is Photoshop better than Lightroom?

Better at what? This is a very subjective answer and anyone answering will reflect their own needs and workflows.

I've been playing seriously with LR for the past couple of weeks and my 2 cents:

File management is different but is a fair match for Aperture in terms of capability - multiple libraries, referenced libraries, good management tools for these.

It also has something Aperture never had: smart previews: edit and process photos even when the master isn't available right now.

Processing is different, but there are more tools (lens correction for instance) and a very healthy aftermarket in presets for the app - much more than was ever there for Aperture. Basically, in terms of tools, LR continued to develop while Aperture stagnated. There is a learning curve, sure, but there are lots (and lots and lots) of resources out there - especially video on YouTube. These will help get you going.

Downsides: the interface is cluttered and modular. It's more awkward to get things done, especially compared to Aperture.

Photoshop is a different app entirely. It has no real management capabilities and is more a pure editor. But what an editor. You can layout Vogue on this thing. And therein lies the problem. The old joke goes that no one uses more than a third of what Photoshop can do, but everyone uses a different third. It has an awful lot of very powerful tools and many of them are of little relevance to a photographer but are to a graphic designer.

Finally there is the problem of paying for it. You can get both Lightroom and Photoshop on a subscription model for about $10 per month. Not everyone loves subscription models...

The glaring fact is that Apple has chosen a while ago to move away from supporting it's Pro' customers, like it or not that's the fact of life, ( iLife? ), now.

Back when Apple was struggling to survive it came out with FCP and editors moved to it in droves, nearly killing off Avid in the process. Aperture too when that came along quickly found an enthusiastic user base, as did other Apple Pro' applications. Apple I believe was supported through it's lean years by by a faithful cadre of editors, graphic artists, audio creatives and yes photographers too. For the great majority of those in such and like creative professions only Apple provided the tools they were happy to work with and Apple responded by continual development of those hardware and software tools.........Then along came the iPhone, the iPad and now, God help us, the iWatch and it appears that Apple has decided that their once all too faithful Pro' base isn't really worth the time and energy to foster any longer.

Maybe economics came into this seeing that the IOS world now provides the majority of their income, profit and growth but I cannot believe that a company as wealthy and as successful as Apple surely is cannot maintain a meaningful division that can continue to develop the great tools that drew many creatives to the brand in the first place. It's just that they now appear not to want to do that. So we who regret the loss of FCP Studio, other applications and now Aperture have the choice of continuing with FCPX ( iMovie Pro' ) and the incoming Photo App..........Or move base entirely and try to find another developer's application that can do what we need.

I can understand why many professionals are ticked off with Apple, I'm one of them, but as said the fact is that we are now a very small part of their customer base and they've decided in most part that we aren't worth the time and resources to develop and support to any meaningful degree.

So is it confirmed then that multiple libraries will not be readily supported in the new Photos OSX like they are in Aperture? This was one feature I really loved for helping to keep our massive collection of family photos manageable. I used to use iPhoto, but as the library grew, iPhoto bogged down.

Does this mean that Apple will no-longer provide Aperture updates?

Yes, it does. Aperture will no longer be sold at the App Store, so what would be the point of updates?

The new 'Photo's for OS X' does't do anything like as much as Aperture. Will Apple be producing a replacement for Aperture?

No announcement at all about a possible replacement for Aperture. The Aperture users are invited to migrate to Photos.

Photos will have more advanced editing tools than iPhoto, but the Retouche brush is the only brushed adjustment, if you look at the Preview:

Apple - OS X - Photos Preview

And no control at all over the design of the Photos library, only albums and smart albums, no folders.

I am sorry to have to tell you this but Apple does not read what is posted here. If you wish to get the attention of Apple, you should post at http://www.apple.com/feedback/macosx.html

Having said that I completely agreed with you about the direction that Apple is taking and downgrading their photographic software to the level of the iPhone and iOS. Personally I see no hope for their solution and my photographic needs so I am researching the third party solutions for a better solution then the "toy" that Apple is providing. You might want to do the same.

When I try to open it, I am sent to the App store for an upgrade. The App store quickly informs me that it is not available.

Try to update as described in this User Tip:

Updating to Aperture 3.6 After the Release of Photos

>> Replacement to Aperture <<

Some of my friends have switched to this.

http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-65215211-Photoshop-Lightroom-5/dp/B00CH6ATMO/ref=cm_ cr_pr_pb_t

Unfortunately, Adobe now RENTS their software by the month. I won't do this, so I will probably go along with Photos.

There have been some discussion going on about what is the best replacement for Aperture. The two most considered alternatives seem to be Lightroom and Capture One Pro 8. Capture One is the closest to Aperture. But none is a complete replacement, there is always something to sacrifice.

Can't tell you how disappointed I am that Apple is dropping Aperture. I only went to it 12 months ago after buying a 35mm full frame camera and enjoy using it. The new program looks like an updated iPhoto so looks like I've just done my money on something that will no longer be supported. Apple is losing friends by the thousands as they keep 'dumbing things down' for people who only want to take pictures on their bloody phones!

So is it confirmed then that multiple libraries will not be readily supported in the new Photos OSX like they are in Aperture?

No it's not. Multiple libraries are perfectly possible with Photos. You can only have one library in the Cloud but you can have as many as you like locally. Multiple libraries are also perfectly possible with iPhoto btw...

I know that, but for iPhoto one could not switch libraries within the software. As I recall one had to change the library pointer then restart the software. Aperture made switching libraries very easy without needing to change settings or to restart the program.

So is it confirmed then that multiple libraries will not be readily supported in the new Photos OSX like they are in Aperture? This was one feature I really loved for helping to keep our massive collection of family photos manageable. I used to use iPhoto, but as the library grew, iPhoto bogged down.

Not at all. Nothing is confirmed yet, because there is only a Beta version being tested, and Beta versions can change any day, without prior warning

The current Photos Beta supports switching between libraries, but only one library can be the main library and sync with iCloud, just like you now can only have one Aperture library or Photo Library use the photo streams.

So, if you want all your photos in iCloud Photo Library, merge the respective libraries into one library. And do not include the photos that you do not want in iCloud.

I know that, but for iPhoto one could not switch libraries within the software.

iPhoto 3.6 has a "Switch to Library" in the File menu, just like Aperture, also "Open in Aperture".

In Photos you double-click the library you want to open.

This is a massive failure on Apples part to continue supporting existing users. This has become a repeated situation over the years. This whole iCloudification of everything is just a means to sell cloud storage on their part. I have 6TB of photos and the biggest iCloud plan is 1TB. They are only pandering to consumers taking selfies. There is no way on this earth I will pay Apple to use their cloud service. Anyone else get completely screwed over by .mac? I had a paid subscription and used it for a lot of things like web hosting, photo sharing, file sharing, keychain sync etc. etc. Well they just decided one day to drop it and replace it with nothing. I have zero confidence that Apple will not do the same again. I also suffered the iWeb demise, Final Cut transition and now Aperture. Apple really have no integrity.