-
All replies
-
Helpful answers
-
Sep 30, 2015 3:12 AM in response to Terence Devlinby Colin Lahana,Terence Devlin wrote:
You would think that Apple would use some of their $18bn profit to further develop these less "demand" products
Why would you think that?
The "younger" generation are driven by selfies and quick ways to process those. They don't want to fiddle about with adjustments and so on, because the images are only fleeting. Taken today, forgotten tomorrow, so why bother with adjustments and so on.
Condescending much? Perhaps you should send some time out the "younger" generations. It's good for your mental health and it might surprise you just how creative they are.
sadly Apple are now only about profit and market share.
Now? When were they ever anything else? Large Multi-national corporation driven by profit motive. Shock!
-
Sep 30, 2015 12:57 PM in response to Terence Devlinby Colin Lahana,Terence Devlin wrote:
You would think that Apple would use some of their $18bn profit to further develop these less "demand" products
Why would you think that?
What I am saying is that as a business not all products you produce necessarily produce the same profit margins. Some make more than others. However as a customer, and considering Apple's projected position in the past about commitment to professional apps and how their product is the best for creative minds etc etc. , I have made significant investment into their products and the use of them. I recently replaced my 2007 Mac Pro with the new "garbage can" model. I did this basically because the old one could not run the latest versions of FCPX. However with the demise of Aperture I think it is only a matter of time until FCPX goes the same way. So probably not the wisest decision to upgrade.
I think it is a reasonable expectation from a customer, especially with the Apple hype of the past, that these apps would be continued to be developed for the professional sector. If they had been upfront some time ago and simply said that they are not going to support these pro apps going forward I would have made a different decision.
Professional photographers may have 100's of 1,000's of images in their libraries. The adjustments are all lost if you convert to LR. The only way to keep those adjustments in some form is to create a JPEG with the adjustments "burnt in" but any future adjustments would have stop start from scratch with the RAW. Ultimately they will be lost at some point in the future when the OS no longer supports Aperture, that is only a matter of time so best to accept the pain and convert.
If you had imported your images into Aperture as managed files and now want them in LR you will end up with duplicates of your RAW files (if you want to keep Aperture for the adjustments you have made) . This is another wrong decision that I made on Apple's recommendation, i.e. to have managed images.
The "younger" generation are driven by selfies and quick ways to process those. They don't want to fiddle about with adjustments and so on, because the images are only fleeting. Taken today, forgotten tomorrow, so why bother with adjustments and so on.
Condescending much? Perhaps you should send some time out the "younger" generations. It's good for your mental health and it might surprise you just how creative they are.
My younger generation comment is not (or not meant to be) condescending. I have just spent the whole of this year back in colledge doing a photographic course where 90% of the students in my class are under 23 yoa so I think I am well informed to make such a statement. They are very creative, but my comment is not about that, it is about where Apple are taking things for this generation ("younger generation" could mean younger people or a younger generation of devices). It is not meant to be derogatory but is a comment on my observations. It's a fact, just look at people on a bus, train etc. almost everyone is staring at a mobile device.
sadly Apple are now only about profit and market share.
Now? When were they ever anything else? Large Multi-national corporation driven by profit motive. Shock!
I am not advocating against companies making profits, be they multi national or one man bands. I guess it is more about someone makes a profit at another person loss, in this case it is the professional photographer.
It is always amusing however to see indignant responses on this forum rather than informed and logical arguments. -
Sep 30, 2015 2:18 PM in response to Gerald Giffordby Marc P,...and that is why I am not updating to El Capitan (now available at Apple store) until I am assured Aperture works on it.
-
-
Sep 30, 2015 3:35 PM in response to Marc Pby léonie,...and that is why I am not updating to El Capitan (now available at Apple store) until I am assured Aperture works on it.
You can always keep a bootable clone (or two) of your Mac as it is now, before you risk the upgrade. This way, you will be able to revert to the current state, if you should encounter problems.
For me, Aperture 3.6 is working well on El Capitan.
-
Sep 30, 2015 3:47 PM in response to Colin Lahanaby Terence Devlin,I think it is a reasonable expectation from a customer, especially with the Apple hype of the past, that these apps would be continued to be developed for the professional sector. If they had been upfront some time ago and simply said that they are not going to support these pro apps going forward I would have made a different decision.
They announced more than a year ago that they were no longer developing Aperture. That was upfront and some time ago.
If you had imported your images into Aperture as managed files and now want them in LR you will end up with duplicates of your RAW files (if you want to keep Aperture for the adjustments you have made) .
In the situation you describe I'm guessing that you want to continue using aperture? If so, simply relocate the Masters, and then both Aperture and LR can use them, no duplication.
-
Sep 30, 2015 7:07 PM in response to rodphotoby Velocifero,I totally agree with you on this mate! Please Apple, bring back Aperture, photos is absolute rubbish and can't edit nothing properly!
-
Sep 30, 2015 7:10 PM in response to Allan Eckertby Velocifero,For real?!?!?! But What version, because the latest that I have is Aperture 3... something, are you sure about this?
-
Sep 30, 2015 7:21 PM in response to Velociferoby Allan Eckert,Yes. I am sure about that. Aperture even works with El Capitan as long as you have 3.6 that is.
-
Sep 30, 2015 9:26 PM in response to rodphotoby cashaww,As much as I like Aperture, I have had it and will make my exit from this software. If a company is not going to maintain a product, why continue to use it?
-
Sep 30, 2015 11:05 PM in response to Terence Devlinby Colin Lahana,a year us hardly a reasonable time for notice to professionals to change their business workflow.
Why would I possibly want to continue using a product that will in time not be compatible with the OS. The only reason I would have to use it would be to access adjustments that I have made to existing images.
I am bored with this discussion.Aperture is dead, RIP.
-
Oct 1, 2015 12:29 AM in response to Colin Lahanaby Terence Devlin,a year us hardly a reasonable time for notice to professionals to change their business workflow.
How long should it be? Remember more than a year since it was announced. Aperture still runs in El Capitan, so that's more than two years Aperture will continue to run (at least) before you need to decide to abandon it or simply not upgrade. Is that enough time? No?
Why would I possibly want to continue using a product that will in time not be compatible with the OS. The only reason I would have to use it would be to access adjustments that I have made to existing images.
Exactly. And you think that that means you would need to duplicate your Raws. I've told you that's not necessary and how to avoid it. You're welcome, of course.
-
-
Oct 3, 2015 7:34 AM in response to Marc Pby freediverx01,So far, Aperture is working fine on El Capitan for me.
I spent some time trying to use the Photos app and iCloud Photo Library, in the hope I could figure out a way to use them alongside Aperture. Concluded it was an entirely impractical notion.
iCloud Photo Library is an all or nothing proposition. It offers no way to designate some photos to be stored on the cloud while others to only be stored locally. If you delete a photo or video anywhere, it will be deleted everywhere. That of course presents a challenge for anyone with a sizeable image library, as well as anyone who wants to keep some photos or video clips away from cloud servers. Additionally, the Photos app wants to share your existing image library with Aperture. If you allow it, your entire Aperture library will be pushed to the cloud and, if you don't, you must choose between having your photo and image collection split into two libraries and applications or having gigabytes of duplicated data.
Again, Apple's only solution for those who object to any of this is to simply not use iCloud Photo Library and completely miss out on all the cloud sync features. They are becoming increasingly indifferent and even hostile to power users and professionals alike - the very same brand evangelists who helped them achieve their current mainstream success.
-
Oct 3, 2015 8:09 AM in response to freediverx01by Marc P,Like my former firm, the biggest ..... in the world, Apple has become arrogant. It did no good to my former employer...