Aperture to What?

garage band guitar wrote:

Terence, I'm intrigued.

I've never used an external editor (I don't even know what one is).

I guessing this would allow one to edit, through Photos, in Aperture and the adjustments, location data etc. are saved in Photos?

What happens when OS X doesn't support Aperture any more? Would I have to sit on El Capitain?

Use the editing extension to activate a powerful external editor, not another DAM. For example Affinity Photos is very promising as an alternative to Photoshop, and it is fully compatible with Photos and El Capitan.

the Dxo Optics Pro Extension is providing already a very good raw support for Photos.

sorry, I have no idea what all of that means.

Sorry for being a bit cryptic. What I meant is, that you can use many image editors using the "External Editors" extension in Photos, but it has to be an editor and not another image database. You cannot use Aperture as an editor this way, because Aperture needs to import a photo before you can edit it.

You can call any application from Photos using this extension, that can open an image file and save the edited version back. Candidates are Adobe PhotoShops or similar, Pixelmator, and many more. My favorite currently is Affinity Photos.

Thanks.

There are two things that would get me on OS X Photos today: Support for importing a GPS track and a few brushes (like the ones found in Aperture).

I've used Tonality (extension) in Photos and like it a lot. Perhaps that is an example of external editing?

Support for importing a GPS track and a few brushes (like the ones found in Aperture).

Definitely! Brushes, Geocoding (better, more detailed maps, the ability to show the GPS coordinates), a better support for metadata tags, and a better batch processing.

I've used Tonality (extension) in Photos and like it a lot. Perhaps that is an example of external editing?

Yes, that is an example.

I am using Noiseless and Affinity Haze Removal a lot. Both are extensions like Tonality. The difference between extension and external editor is, that the extension only offers a limited set of the tools of the full, stand alone application, and by installing the "External editor" extension you can call the stand alone application directly from Photos.

You may want to have a look at Old Toad's User Tip: External Editors in Photos Are Here

And at this list of available extensions: Photo Editing Extensions for Photos for Mac

leonie, you seem to be on the cutting edge of this.

Are you aware of any methods in Photos to show Keywords (and other metadata) underneath the thumbnails the way that Aperture still has, and that earlier versions of iPhoto had ?

This capability is an absolute requirement for those of us doing engineering / scientific work with our images.

https://documentation.apple.com/en/aperture/usermanual/index.html#chapter=5%26se ction=20%26tasks=true

The monthly bill (for LR) is tempting knowing you get updates that you do not pay extra for.

Just to be clear, LR can still be purchased, http://www.adobe.com/products/catalog/software._sl_id-contentfilter_sl_catalog_s l_software_sl_mostpopular.html for $150.

Are you aware of any methods in Photos to show Keywords (and other metadata) underneath the thumbnails the way that Aperture still has, and that earlier versions of iPhoto had ?

Photos cannot do that yet. But I am using Photos with Power Photos as a secondary Browser.

Power Photos can easily switch between libraries, move photos between libraries, and makes it easier to browse the photos with metadata below the thumbnails or in list view.

In PowerPhotos I can browse the Photos Library like this - with two titles below the thumbnails. You can use the subtitle for keywords.

Or in list view:

I agree. I have been using Aperature for years and now Apple wants to convert to Photos? No thanks!!

I too, have a strong adversion to LR and I am dismayed with Apple for not upgrading and making me change!

Apple doesn't want you to convert to Photos. They just stopped making Aperture, I don't think they care what you choose to do.

I do not agree with the opinions here, that LR seems to be the "default" way to go after Aperture.

I spent a month comparing LR and C1 Pro (from Phase One) side by side, to give me a thorough overview of the strengths and weaknesses of both tools. I knew both LR and C1 already, LR from testing out previous versions here and there (never liked it) and C1 for being my default tool back in 2004 when it was in version 3.6 just before Apple released Aperture.

What I always liked about Aperture was its great interface, the very well designed database approach, which allowed for excellent scaleability, the overall ease of use in the quest to "replace the finder" and the great customisation options of the whole interface and workflow. I was a Aperture evangelist basically from day one. So that's what I was looking for in LR and C1 mainly.

After my tests, LR was just as bad to work with as it was with its first version back in 2007. You can not customise sh** for your workflow. You can not even adjust the keyboard shortcuts. You can not put the adjustment panels on the left side if you are left handed. It has never tried to replace the finder with a slick database, you are always forced to look after your files on the finder level on your own. It was always designed for one screen and one screen only, even if it later added multiscreen support. And its image quality, while it was maybe slightly better than Aperture, did not really blew me away.

C1 on the other hand has major shortcomings on the DAM side and is a much less solid database to work with. The interface is a bit weird, but at least it makes good use of screen real estate compared to LR. Image quality is top notch, it is absolutely stunning and second to none. Color editing and grading is pure joy. And what was one the major strong points for me: it has an even MORE customisable interface than Aperture. It actually allows you to create a floating window for every single adjustment panel there is (and there are a lot), put it anywhere you want it and then save the whole setup as a workspace. Adjusting the keyboard shortcuts allowed me to bring back my "muscle memory" from Aperture. And it has the same referenced or managed approach to handling your assets. You can throw all your images into the catalog and have it handle all the files in the background for you. So to my surprise, it was MUCH closer to Aperture after testing it than LR ever was, despite everybody talking about LR as the "obvious" migration path. Just not true.

Did you looking into Media Pro from Phase One. It is their photo management software

Media Pro is professional photo management software that makes it easy to manage your photo and video assets. Built to be fast and intuitive, it is a powerful photography assistant that will supercharge the way you find, organize, and share your images and videos wherever your files are stored.

https://www.phaseone.com/en/Imaging-Software/Media-Pro.aspx?

I used Media Pro together with C1 3.6 back in 2004, so I know it already. From what I've seen in the forums, there's not a lot of development from Phase One on Media Pro and the expectation was, that they are integrating its features into C1 and retire it as a standalone at one day. So that's why I did not put any time into using it.

Thank you for your post. I have loved Aperture and am dismayed by it's demise. I too have tried LR, did not like it before Aperture was released, and am not happy with it now.

I much appreciate your suggestion to try C1 Pro.