Aperture vs Photos, no hierarchical Keywords?

If you have not seen it, I posted a user tip with some hints on how to prepare the Aperture library or libraries before the migration to photos, while you still can use Aperture: https://discussions.apple.com/docs/DOC-8462

I'm beginning to wonder whether I need Keywords at all - at least those which allude to and/or describe image contents!

The categories are fun, indeed. I am using them a lot for searches, but I am still applying my own keywords. Sometimes the categories are hilariously wrong, but they are saving a lot of time.

Hi Mark,

Leonie is correct - no hierarchy (at the moment). Unfortunate, but hopefully they add it.

I ran a text with export jpgs and dngs files into Photos on High Sierra and keywords for both were not only visible, but added to Photos' keyword manager.

I think it sadly means more work when selecting multiple keywords per photo.

For the smart albums, I think it might work well to select multiple keywords although I have NOT tried it (yet).

Cheers,
Brian

Yes.

Am I right that Photos does not/cannot preserve this - and that such 'Heads' ('Orientation', 'Image Type') will come across during import from Aperture as actual Keywords themselves?

That is right. If you convert an Aperture Library to a photos Library, your keyword hierarchy will be flattened.

For example, I had a keyword category animal > bird > sparrow, and now the sparrows in my library have three separate keywords: animal, bird, sparrow.

You could rename all subcategory keywords in aperture to include all super categories in the name:

My keyword sparrow could be renamed to animal:bird:sparrow. But I would only do that for keyword, that are duplicates, like "landscape" - if you used landscape to describe nature photos as well as to describe the orientation of a photo.

Your point 6… GeoTagging is supported in Photos 2, now, isn't it?

It is a lot easier in Aperture, because the maps in Aperture are more suitable for that. They have much more detail and you can define locations, that you frequently use. In Photos you cannot use GPS track logs, you cannot copy and paste the coordinates between photos (unless you use an Apple Script).

If you still have locations to add, do it in Aperture.

The maps in photos are essentially street maps. You can see main roads, points of interest, shops, restaurants. But nearly no geographic details, like creeks, mountains, etc. And you can only add locations, if you are online. Photos needs the connection to apple's location database.

Here is an example. If you are taking your photos outside the big cities, it is nearly impossible to use the tiny map in the Info panel in Photos to drop a pin and to add a location, because of the lack of detail.

It is location in Madagascar, where the road is interrupted by a wide river and we had to drive through a ford.

The map in Aperture is showing more detail to help to place the pin:

If your original photos have GPS EXIF tags assigned, Photos will use them, when you import the photos. And Photos can show them in the Places view, overplayed on satellite images. You can just not use the satellite and the hybrid view from Places to add locations. We are still restricted to the tiny thumbnail map in the Info panel.

If you know the GP coordinates of a location, you can enter the latitude and longitude in degrees into the field "Assign a location" and add a precise coordinate.

When you export photos (edited version) from Photos, most of the metadata will be included in the IPTC and EXIF tags. If you export original image files, Photos can create an XPM sidecar file with the metadata you added. And it will read the sidecar file and apply the metadata, when you reimport the photos to Photos.

I posted a few Apple Scripts in the Photos user Tip section to help with copying GPS coordinated between photos in Photos.

I'm thinking not for the most part - the content identificaion in Photos is pretty neat for me - well worth the really long scan to populate it

LN