Where does Photos store my photos?

What, exactly, is the point of Photos anyway? What purpose does it serve when I can browse through my photos in the Finder? Apart from being able to use keywords, what special features does it bring to the table that the Finder does not? I'm not saying I don't like it or that it's no good, just curious as to what advantages I will discover when using it. As well as trying to work out if I need it or not.

The Finder manages files, Photos manages photos.

Photos is a digital asset management system, consisting of a relational database and photo editing software.

• It stores your photos for you and keeps track of photos in different state of edit, so you can always see which edits have been applied and revert to the original.
• You can search for your photos by photo related attributes, like camera model, lens, flash, etc.
• You can add titles, captions, keywords, places, faces and use the metadata in smart albums to have several ways to retrieve the photos.
• You can edit the photos in a lossless way, and revert individual edits. Or keep different edited versions of the photos without needing much extra storage.
• If you use iCloud Photo Library you can sync your library to all devices, so any edit you do on one device will appear on all other device. When I edit my photos on my MacBook Pro while traveling, I am finding the edited and tagged versions on my iMac when I arrive home and can continue where I left off.

I suppose this means that Photos must make a copy of those Photos somewhere, hidden deep down in the Mac system?

In the preference panel for Photos, there is an option called: "Copy Items To The Photos Library". What does this mean? Is it the option to create an extra copy in some hidden library or if not ticked, does it create a link to the original folders but not copy anything?

Photos supports two ways of storing the original image files: See this help Page: https://help.apple.com/photos/mac/1.0/?lang=en#/pht12e7a8015

1. Referenced: The photos are not copied into the library, but referenced in their original location. That is not recommended, because it is error prone. If the originals are moved or deleted, or modified in any way, the connection to the edited versions in the Photos library may be lost. You must not access your photos by accessing the referenced originals.
2. Managed: The originals are copied into the Photos Library. This way, Photos is responsible of keeping track of them and managing them for your. It is easier to back up and restore the library or to move it to a different drive.

1 - it makes bit for bit copies and after importing you delete the originals - the files are not modified in any way and are not kept in one large file or anythings else - they are in folders within the Photos library

2 - by default the Photos library is in your pictures folder - you do not ever edit it as they are no user serviceable parts in it - the library is an SQLite database and you never make any changes to its contents except using the Photos program

LN

Also, where would I find the Photos Library, in case I ever want to remove, edit or back it up?

The Photos.app can tell you where the library is, if you do not keep it in the default location in the Pictures folder.

In Photos open the Preferences panel: Photos > Preferences > General:

The first line of this panel is showing the path to the library, and there is also a button "Show in Finder".

LarryHN wrote:

1 - it makes bit for bit copies and after importing you delete the originals -

I imported my photographs through photoshop/scanner and filed them into folders for repair.

I then imported them into IPHOTO for printing and face recognition.

Never deleted the originals - as ILIFE09 dropped a format available in ILIFE08.

So the OP may want to consider a strategy of keeping the originals - rather than risk another Apple surprise.

Ok

I have no idea what you are getting at but certainly keeping duplicates is a user option - most people use standard JPEG photos generated by a standard camera or a standard scanner - generally, especially with new SSD drives, disk space is expensive enough to make keeping two copies of every original undesirable

If it is the answer for you (or for anyone) no problem - for 99.999% of people it is a waste of disk space

LN

If it is the answer for you (or for anyone) no problem - for 99.999% of people it is a waste of disk space

On the system drive or the same drive as the library for sure.

I got into the habit of keeping separate copies of the originals on a different drive. When I am importing the photos to a library I make this backup of the originals. That was easy in Aperture, where you can set up a backup folder right in the Import panel. It has saved my bacon several times, whenever bad disk blocks corrupted the originals. The big problem is, that corruptions of the originals may go unnoticed for for many years, longer than the Time Machine backups of the library will cover. I just had to restore a corrupted original from 2008, where the Time Machine version was corrupted as well. The backup copies of the originals on a different drive were still fine.

But then you are most certainly in the .001% of users 😁

Few have your knowledge or discipline - I have neither 😢

LN

Now you are being too modest 😁

LarryHN wrote:

Ok

I have no idea what you are getting at but certainly keeping duplicates is a user option - most people use standard JPEG photos generated by a standard camera or a standard scanner - generally, especially with new SSD drives, disk space is expensive enough to make keeping two copies of every original undesirable

If it is the answer for you (or for anyone) no problem - for 99.999% of people it is a waste of disk space

LN

Your 99% are probably keeping too many pictures - as in I took it so I am keeping it no matter what.

I have 4,000 pictures tops most scanned in and repaired from old photographs (never put that in Jpeg) - and they span 100 Years.

Would have slightly more - but even with film I shredded the pictures that were blurry or just did not come out good.

What happens if I decide to use an application which does not recognise the Photos.app library? For instance, when I open Photoscape and a few others, there is really no sign of it.

You either use the media browser (in every open window on the left toward the bottom under media ==> photos ==> Photos) or you export to a desktop folder and use form there

for external editors you can use he above but an much better way is to use External editors for Photos so you can edit directly in Photos using the editor - External Editors in Photos Are Here and Photo Editing Extensions for Photos for Mac .

As to using Photos at all - that is a personal decision - obviously the people here choose to use it - you have to make that choice

And as Léonie says you can use referenced photos but it is not recommended (actually I strongly recommend against it)

and as

Does anyone know of a good, reliable alternative which does not necessitate making copies?

that does not exist as any editor that applies edits directly to the original rather than using modern Digital Asset Manage methods of always keeping the original (the digital negative) intact and unchanged is not a good system - they exist but I would not use one as my photos are important to me - you can not have a good system without keeping the original unchanged and that requires a copy

Your personal choice to keep an unnecessary second copy is a choice not a requirement and few people keep extra copies but do have a good backup system - if you choose to keep multiple redundant copies of the original of course there is a cost of that decision

LN