Looks like no one’s replied in a while. To start the conversation again, simply ask a new question.

What are some good reasons for not using Photos (for an amateur who likes the clean Photos interface)?

I have been an Aperture user and I have used reference files in Aperture to have my photos organized at the hard drive level as much as it is organized in Aperture.


I should clarify that I did not use major editing features of Aperture, am not a pro.

I like the idea behind live photos in Photos. And its simplicity while not losing major capabilities.

Largely my worry is that if someday Apple drops the ball on its Photo software (and lags behind in a major way), then will it be impossible for me to move out. I suppose if that happens, there will be geeks who will write Apple scripts to export image files out of Photos.


I tried Lightroom. I do not like their interface. Unnecessary clutter.


With this background, my question - what might be the negatives that come with using Photos as my primary Photo management software?


Have others who use Aperture moved or considered moving and dropped the idea?


Thanks!

Mac OS X (10.7.2)

Posted on Oct 2, 2015 1:57 PM

Reply
6 replies

Oct 2, 2015 2:13 PM in response to msim20

Have others who use Aperture moved or considered moving and dropped the idea?

I'm using Photos to have a selection of photos synced in iCloud across all my devices, and that part is working well.

Things to consider for you:

  • The support for a refernced library is limited in Photos. You can consolidate photos into the library, but not relocate outside the library. Referenced images cannot sync to iCloud.
  • The editing options are better than in iPhoto, but there are nearly no brushed adjustments, only the Retouche brush.
  • The support for metadata is very basic. If you want to be able to browse your metadata, Consider to buy PowerPhotos as an external broswer for your Photos library: Fat Cat Software – PowerPhotos It is a great tool to have with Photos.
  • Photos cannot split and merge libraries.
  • Plug-ins are not supported.

On the Pro side:

It is free and integrates well with the Apple Eco system. The first update with El Capitan brought already some improvements.

Oct 2, 2015 3:36 PM in response to léonie

@léonie thanks for your reply.


  1. So I will give up on my referenced library. I can bear with that. I wonder though whether my albums and such from Aperture will carry over. Any idea?
  2. Editing options - I will live with whatever Apple offers and there appear to be plugins as you mention - so more options will emerge. Plug-ins are supported - in the latest version. Are the not?
  3. Will not split libraries. Fine with that.
  4. Fat Cat is a great idea.


And indeed I am drawn by its integration with Apple eco-system. At least the photos will be seen more often if they are on various devices. As of now, my photos go to die in Aperture in the hope that some day I will put them out to Smugmug. I guess I will be leaving Smugmug also.


None of these are major issues for me.


Wonder if others have found fatal flaws with Photos. People here do seem to be rather upset that Aperture is dropped.

Oct 2, 2015 3:56 PM in response to msim20

. I can bear with that. I wonder though whether my albums and such from Aperture will carry over. Any idea?

Yes,the library will be migrated as a library. Albums, folders, keywords, titles, captions, locations, faces will be transferred, also the edits.


See this link for more detail: How Photos handles content and metadata from iPhoto and Aperture - Apple Support


Photos does not have projects, so your projects will be replaced by albums. Hierarchical keywords will be flattened. Some smart albums wlll not work like before, if they are using constraints based on metadata, that are not accessible in Photos.


Wonder if others have found fatal flaws with Photos. People here do seem to be rather upset that Aperture is dropped.

Not really flaws - photos is just not a tool for professionals. Aperture is like a well-stocked work bench with dedicated tools for professional photo editing and can be customized and adapted to our workflow, and Photos in comparison is a basic swiss-army knife with just one tool for each of the most common tasks. They simply target different user groups.

Oct 2, 2015 8:22 PM in response to msim20

What are some good reasons for not using photos?


You got some good advice above, let me add something additional that may be important.


Photos CAN NOT display any metadata below thumbnails. For most of its life, iPhoto had the ability to show keywords under the thumbnails. A few years ago this capability was removed by Apple. I then switch to Aperture which has the ability to show keywords under thumbnails. I find this ability utterly indispensable. It is most useful and convenient having keywords showing underneath each thumbnail.


Photos cannot do this. Today, to my knowledge, the only two photo programs that have this ability are "Aperture" and "Lyn".


I am in NO WAY affiliated with Lyn, just a customer.

Oct 3, 2015 8:17 AM in response to Ziatron

Thank you for the replies.


I agree that Photos is not a workbench and I do like the keywords to show below the thumbnails, and even on the hovering tooltips (in Aperture). I like the ability to compare two images side by side. So I understand well the criticism at a generic level - simplified software that foregoes functionality that is desired by many (amateurs) and critical to some (Pros).


Trying to understand, the small things that Photos causes us to give up and trying to assess whether it is worth giving up those small things for Photos.

What we need to give up:

  • Ability to save file hierarchy (of some kind) at a filesystem level
  • Far more capable keyword system including easy access to updating photos with keywords.
  • Star ratings for images - which even I used to use
  • Smart albums based on many attributes
  • Structured hierarchy - projects, folders, albums, smart albums within albums and outside.
  • Ability to easily move to another software (given files are sorted at the filesystem level), although edits will have to exported as flat images
  • I wish they had updated Aperture to also integrate into their eco-system. Alas, Apple did not think it generated enough ROIC - directly through software revenue and indirectly through hardware sales(Return on invested capital). Far fewer people used it.


    With the above said, I have surveyed alternatives to Aperture and none of them appear as good and there is no hope that they will integrate into Apple eco-system quite like Apple's Photos does. And my family has adopted the Apple eco-system...


    Apple appears to focus maniacally on user interface. Photos I presume is important to them and they will keep adding features that will make it more powerful over time. Apple has resources to make it better and since >50% of their Mac user base will use it, and >95% of their iPhone user base will use it, I think they will develop it well. Apple Photos uses live photos, can handle videos - I hope, and allows me to share albums seamlessly with iPhones and few others who I want to share photos with can see those albums on the iCloud web I suppose, or if the need arises on Flickr or such.


    And so, I feel that the jump to Apple Photos is an appropriate one for an amateur who uses a Mac and iPhone and other devices in the family.


    Would love more critiques on gaps in my thinking with respect to this one way change I am about to make and that others might be considering.


    The comments so are helpful but I am not marking the question answered because it is less of a question and more of a prompt to request a few opinions to fill the thinking gap or to negate the thinking.


    Thanks!

    What are some good reasons for not using Photos (for an amateur who likes the clean Photos interface)?

    Welcome to Apple Support Community
    A forum where Apple customers help each other with their products. Get started with your Apple ID.