Change in iPhoto to Photos is Sickening

frazzm737 wrote:

I was scared a bit at first til I realized that I could go back to the familiar organization in the new Photos program. If you click on View> Show Sidebar, you will get the option to show the original iPhoto Events view. The view is reversed, with newest at the top, but it is the same as in iPhoto. I will try to adjust to the new program as I'm sure Apple will add improvements with time. And there will be no more iPhoto support. I do still have iPhoto, just in case....

Photos built in editor is better than iPhoto as well.

Csound1 wrote:

frazzm737 wrote:

I was scared a bit at first til I realized that I could go back to the familiar organization in the new Photos program. If you click on View> Show Sidebar, you will get the option to show the original iPhoto Events view. The view is reversed, with newest at the top, but it is the same as in iPhoto. I will try to adjust to the new program as I'm sure Apple will add improvements with time. And there will be no more iPhoto support. I do still have iPhoto, just in case....

Photos built in editor is better than iPhoto as well.

I couldn't detect any difference in the editor but I don't use iPhoto's editor anyway. I use Lightroom and PhotoShop. I did play around with Photos and, for me, there was absolutely no benefit and several major disadvantages.

My HD is partitioned with everything EXCEPT the several iPhoto libraries on the main partition. The iPhoto libraries are on the secondary partition, which is set for "ignore ownership." I put all photos from my cameras and my wife's camera onto iPhoto and I configure the folders and albums such that we both know what photos are where. The best part is that I can decide which photos are sent to iCloud for distribution to my iPad, my iPod and my login on my MBP.

My wife can then access any of the libraries from her login with complete rights and privileges. She can copy photos to her desktop and folders, she can post onto FB, she can attach to email messages. She can even move photos to her iCloud (completely separate and distinct from my iCloud) for sharing with her iPad and her login on my MBP and these photos are conceivably the same ones that I sync to my iCloud for sharing with my devices!

When I played around with Photos, I couldn't see any benefit at all and I did find several disadvantages. First, I couldn't control which photos went to iCloud and my main library is so large that I would have to pay for extra iCloud storage for photos that I don't even want on iCloud. Second, when I tried switching libraries, Photos began to sync iCloud with the secondary library against my wishes. Third, I was unable to give my wife the functionality that she has now with iPhoto.

I'll stick with iPhoto, thank you.

I agree that at first the new Photos app appears so different that it was hard to use. That's usually what happens when new products come along. But in going through the menus in Photos I discovered that the View menu allows one to see the familiar Sidebar that I used for navigation of my photos in iPhoto. Once I selected View Sidebar things got much easier.

Also, this thread is about the Photos app in Yosemite and not the Photos app in iOS. But the thread was posted to the Using iPad forum. I'll request that it be moved to the proper location.

Fortunately I decide how things are on my computers, my partner has her own and manages them her way. 🙂

I use iPhoto (and am testing Photos), but for serious photography I still use film, remember that stuff? and I don't shoot 1000 pics a day, each of my photographs represents many hours of looking, and a few milliseconds of button pressing.

To manage the real photographs I use Finder and some artfully named folders. Digital cameras are (for me) for snapshots, nothing looks like a 6 x 7 on T-Max

(Kodak T-Max, Mamiya or Hasselblad)

I can't even find mine, what the H*ll have they done?

Now, if tApple insist I put my thousands of images all onto icloud I will have to pay to access them, NO WAY.

I'm off to look for a Microsoft surface.

This is a step too far.

I just do not understand why I am being asked to put everything up onto the cloud, I am already being charged for having too many emails stored, goodness knows how much I will be charged for having thousands of photos, more than 15 years worth?

*** is going on?

Oh I know, I forgot, I'm just a cash cow.

It appears that Apple forces us all to move forward...kicking and screaming at times as they roll out their new products. Like many, I am disappointed with some of the changes in Photo, such as the absence of adding a location to pictures that are taken from a camera without a GPS, which leads to the lack of the world map where you once could click on a location and see all the picts from that part of the world...hopefully Apple will consider an upgrade...perhaps not as they WANT everyone to buy their product which HAS a GPS on their camera...

Each time I get a bit upset, I'm reminded that we get what it is we pay for...Photos is free...time to put some money in Adobe and get what I really want...sigh...

I gave up film when Kodachrome went away.

I bought a Macbook pro, I bought iphoto as an add on, it is/was not FREE.

It was a premium product.

Macbook are expensive, the suite that included iphoto was expensive.

So now I have to pay an unspecified amount to store my own data, currently stored on my laptop, on the cloud with a monthly charge?

Have I misunderstood how it works?

Yes you have, cloud storage is optional, if you don't turn it on your photos will be kept on your Mac and you can use them in iPhoto or Photos. You have the choice.

krausera wrote:

It appears that Apple forces us all to move forward...kicking and screaming at times as they roll out their new products. Like many, I am disappointed with some of the changes in Photo, such as the absence of adding a location to pictures that are taken from a camera without a GPS, which leads to the lack of the world map where you once could click on a location and see all the picts from that part of the world...hopefully Apple will consider an upgrade...perhaps not as they WANT everyone to buy their product which HAS a GPS on their camera...

Each time I get a bit upset, I'm reminded that we get what it is we pay for...Photos is free...time to put some money in Adobe and get what I really want...sigh...

Why not use iPhoto instead?

Never liked Kodachrome, and I shoot B/W almost exclusively. Even for the snaps with the iPhone.

Csound1 wrote:

Never liked Kodachrome, and I shoot B/W almost exclusively. Even for the snaps with the iPhone.

Never liked Kodachrome? Aagh, aagh, choke, choke!

I cut my teeth on Kodachrome ASA-5 and eventually settled on ASA-25.

Honestly, Kodachrome was great for scenics and "things." Not too good for portraits - too contrasty - but I never liked people anyway.

Csound1 wrote:

krausera wrote:

It appears that Apple forces us all to move forward...kicking and screaming at times as they roll out their new products. Like many, I am disappointed with some of the changes in Photo, such as the absence of adding a location to pictures that are taken from a camera without a GPS, which leads to the lack of the world map where you once could click on a location and see all the picts from that part of the world...hopefully Apple will consider an upgrade...perhaps not as they WANT everyone to buy their product which HAS a GPS on their camera...

Each time I get a bit upset, I'm reminded that we get what it is we pay for...Photos is free...time to put some money in Adobe and get what I really want...sigh...

Why not use iPhoto instead?

That's what I'm doing. No big deal.