Will I lose iPhoto if I upgrade to High Sierra?

Hi

I too am worried about upgrading to High Sierra in case I lose iPhoto. Like you I assign keywords descriptions and location to all my photos and videos. This info makes searching a large library, or making smart albums much easier with this metadata.

Hopefully below may be a useful solution to at least part of the issue in case as been said iPhoto disappears.

I use Photos to view my collection as it is..well better, aesthetically mainly, but for the reason I'll explain below I use iPhoto as the main interface for metadata input as it is easier to use and has more functionality. And then I use Aperture to finalise. This process may help your dilemma.

To explain, in the early day I lost all the metadata above to a couple of thousand photos when iPhoto crashed one time and I lost all the metadata I had spent months inputting. After much research the reason this happened is iPhoto, Aperture and Photos doesn't actually attach the metadata (keywords,location,description) on the photo or video file. It makes a seperate list file (plist) that it references to every photo or video that you upload. So if this file for what ever reason gets corrupted or deleted,(which is what happened to me) all that data (And hours of your life you'll never get back) is lost!

(Obviously if you back up regularly this will be less likely)...take note!

The work-around I found and am using currently is to permanently embed the data onto the photo file itself! It takes a little extra time but once done whatever app whether it be an Apple or another or both your photos will automatically have this data to hand.

(Pls note this only works for photo files it won't work for video files! The EXIF and Metadata setup is different for video files strangely!)

The method works in any of the above application so don't be worried if you haven't got Aperture for example. I use Aperture to finalise as it has a few extra tweaks available that I like that iPhoto and Photos haven't got.

The secret in short is to export the photo once you have attached all the data you require to the file. The process of exporting permanently embeds all the EXIF/Metadata info to the file. Of course you will then have two copies of each file you export! Which you probably don't want. So to explain how to I negate duplicates, and of course You may want a different approach but here is details of my process and why I do it.

Firstly, I have one place where my photos and videos are stored. That is, I don't let any of my photo apps make their own library. This saves hard disk space and centralises my collection. Also iPhoto and Photos file hierarchy is very complicated and hard to find photos even if you know how.

All my photo apps 'Reference' the files from this central location with no issues.

To do this, in iPhoto(Aperture included) and Photo, in Preference, under Importing, make the box sure the box 'Copy items to library' is not ticked.

I then "Import' into iPhoto the folder/photo I'm processing. This gets imported as an "Event" in iPhoto.

The reason I use iPhoto first is for a couple of reasons. The main one is my two main cameras haven't got GPS so I have to...(don't have to, just anal) input location manually. iPhoto still has satellite view which Photos doesn't have. This enables me to be more accurate as to where I took the picture. Photos map view isn't very accurate. (Obviously photos taken with GPS enabled devices have this info already embedded.)

iPhoto also has the function to copy a location from one photo and then paste to another or a group of photos which makes this process soooo much quicker than doing it in the current Photos, in Photos you have to input location individually. ( I have asked for this to be included in updates along with other iPhoto useful functions but as yet its fell on deaf ears. Maybe its in High Sierra and this is now a waste of time!!)

I then input the description, keywords and location for each photo and once happy I'm ready to Export.

I then open the project in Aperture, only because it give access to more in-depth Exif/metada fields such as copyright and title which I can batch fill, but if you haven't got Aperture or these extras are not needed don't worry. Skip to next step.

In iPhoto>File>Export, in the export menu I make sure 'Kind' is JPEG, 'JPEG Quality' is Maximum, 'Include' all boxes ticked, 'Size' Full size. I always use File name.

In Photos the steps are the same except Photos>File>Export>Export (number) Photo/s

I then export to an empty 'Untitled folder' on my desktop. (You can name the folder anything you like fyi).

Next step I open another finder window and navigate to where the original folder of photos are and delete (the photos, not the folder they are in!) I then open the exported photo folder('Untitled folder' in my case) and drag and drop the exported photos (not the folder) into the where the original/s were.

The final step and to make sure everything has worked, I delete the photos in iPhoto, making sure I delete from 'Trash' in iPhoto or 'Recently deleted' in Photos to totally clear the cache. Note:Do not delete anything from the 'Main' Trash at this point!!

Once that is done I re-import back from the central location into iPhoto if all has gone to plan all the data, keywords,description and location is automatically included for all the photos when the info window is opened.

I make two checks at this point. First is to make sure the photo is 'Referenced'. To do this I choose one of the photos then, In iPhoto File>Reveal in Finder>Original file should be accessible. In Photos File>Show Referenced File in Finder if these are greyed something has gone wrong. The second check is to choose 'Reveal in Finder' in iPhoto, or 'Show Referenced File in Finder' in Photos, choosing this opens a finder window showing the path to where the photo is stored and this of course should be where it should originally be.

Once I am happy the file is referenced correctly I then import to Photos and the same happens, all info is there when the info pane is opened.

At this point I know it is safe to delete from the 'Trash'

Things to note:

Exporting a file in theory reduces file quality but I haven't notice any noticeable reduction in quality myself.

Any further addition to any info made in any app e.g another or deleted keyword or change in description will not change the original file. It will change in the app only as a plist will be formed with this info. To embed this to the file the steps will have to be repeated once additional info is added. It also won't change in another app, that is a change in iPhoto won't change anything in Photos for the same picture. Also even if you re-export then import a picture in iPhoto the same photo in Photos won't automatically update as it is only referencing the file you will have to delete the reference file form both apps and re-import the updated file.

Deleting a 'Referenced' file from either iPhoto or Photos doesn't delete the original.

If you are letting the app copy to it own library you can still do this.

As said it doesn't work for video files. There are apps that will enable inputting of metadata for both but I haven't found one that works from data already input in iPhoto or Photos.

This is a solution that works for me, anyone trying this method does at their own risk.

Regular back ups are a must!!

Hope this helps

First off: thanks for sharing the post and your method, but I think you are rather using a sledgehammer to crack a peanut. To put it simply you have a very complex workflow when you could easily have a simple one by using the correct application. Further, the process involves significant wasted disk space.

As you have a central store and are working it with iPhoto, Photos and Aperture then you have three sets of thumbnails and three sets of library Previews, all on this one set of originals. That's the wasted disk space.

Because you're doing this input/output dance you're destroying the non-destructive feature that is the key to all three apps.

As you're using a referenced library you can't use the iCloud Photo Library at all. So, another feature that's unusable, this time in Photos.app

You don't need to use iPhoto at all, just use Aperture - it does everything that iPhoto does and then some, as you point out yourself. Aperture can write IPTC to the Masters without exporting. That's one layer of complexity gone right there.

But mostly what you need to do is process the metadata before adding them to any library, and the best way to do this is with an app designed for the job.

PhotoMechanic is designed expressly for this. Move the images to your central store. Write the Metadata with Photomechanic. Then import them to which ever app you actually want to use. No dataloss, and a much more simple workflow. Graphic Converter has similar features. Or, as you're not using the iCloud Photo Library, then just get rid of all these apps and just do the lot with Lightroom, which will also write to the masters or XMP.

Photomechanic and Graphic Convertor do not use a Library, so there are no previews, no thumbnails wasting space. LR just replaces the whole kit and caboodle with a single app.

One suggestion:

You need to stress that when you export to the Finder and replace the originals in the central store you must use the same filename or all the libraries will be corrupted. I know you say to do it, but you need to stress it.

Hi Terence

Yep you are correct, it isn't the best, but I did say it was a work around. 😁 Particularly aimed at Jovike concern.

Thanks for your suggestions, I've had a quick look at Photomechanic and LR and will give them a try with the free trial period because if there is something that make my workflow less complex as you highlighted, it will be a huge bonus!

On your other points, let me explain the whyfor's in order you have made for others benefit.

iPhoto and Aperture use the same library, but even if they have separate thumbnails and previews the disk space used is a lot less than the full copies would be should I let them copy to their own library.

As a further example, a friends dad had two other photo apps as well as iPhoto and Photos and couldn't understand why he didn't have much disk space. It was because he allowed each app to import to its own library (which is usually default setting) so he had four copies of each photo. He just got a bigger hard drive as he didn't want the hassle which is fine if you can afford. But how many people have downloaded an app to try, just like you have suggested to me, and don't know this? I bet there are many people with for or five copies of the same photo but don't realise.

An interesting point on this note. You could easily find if you had copies of a particular file by searching in spotlight. It would tell you if there were any files of the same name and where there were in finder but Photos doesn't allow that now fyi.

My method isn't non-destructive but I only export once and as said I've not notice any loss in quality myself.

You are correct, using a central store means I can't use iCloud but that was a conscious choice on my part. I'm an old cynic and prefer to have my data with me where I know where it is and am fully responsible for its care. Only me to blame then. I Sync photos to my iPhone and iPad and Airplay from my iMac to Apple TV to view on my television. This method doesn't cost as it would if I used the cloud.

Should I change my mind and want to use iCloud and at the same time maybe free some disk space I can of course delete the 'Referenced files' in Photos, open preferences>general>importing and tick the box 'Copy items to the Photos library' then re-import from the central store. All the metadata should automatically be there to view as its embedded. I can then delete from the central store to free up space. (Although I would probably save to another hard drive as backup in case Photos went belly-up.)

Aperture 'should' do everything that iPhoto does, which generally is does but doesn't do as well. Particularly keyword input and location input.

In iPhoto keyword input is a breeze from the 'Manage Keyword' interface as you can just click on the keywords and update a file or multiple files. Even typing is quicker and easier in iPhoto as it autofills as you type. Adding a new keyword is also very easy. Not so in Aperture.

Location setting is also easier in iPhoto. You can move the pin in the map view pane very easily in iPhoto. In Aperture to move the pin once set you have to delete and re-input the rough location, it allows you then to move the pin if needed before clicking the tick to reset. Also Aperture hasn't the 'copy location' function which is one of my most used functions.

Unfortunately Aperture will only write to the masters if they are not referenced! That is it will only write to the original file if its been imported to the iPhoto/Aperture library (for those not in the know). That took me a while to figure! This is actually Aperture's best feature for me, if only Aperture and Photos used the same library!! Everything would be sorted!! If Photos had or the other apps you have suggested have that ability that would fantastic!

So exporting is the only sure fire way to embed the metadata with what I have currently. ( As a footnote for anyone using Aperture for this method in the export process it needs to be the 'Version' that is exported, if you export the 'Original' nothing will change.

Essentially the real issue which has sparked this whole thread ( and many thousand others) is the fact that iPhoto was ok for its time. It work reasonably well for most people and allowed a decent way to organise a collection.

Aperture should have been the paid for better version but although it had better editing abilities it was cluncky and slower to use all round. So in theory Photos should have taken all that was good from both and combined it all to make a worthy 'Upgrade' that should be pleasing past and new users alike and justify the huge premium we pay to be part of the Apple ecosystem. But it hasn't!! Its the very reason thousands are still using these older formats! As said in this thread and many others how can it be better if you omit the most used functions and make it harder for users? Even against feedback!

Rant over!😠🙂😁

This method won't suit a lot of people but for me the main pro's is the data is embedded. Which means I can move the file, make copies, or change the file names for whatever reason and for each copy or new named file the data is still there. I haven't got to re-input. And I also haven't got worry if any migration I may do will lose data as per Jovike concern.

If the Apps you have suggested embed the data to the file and its easier and quicker, that will work for me. And you will have my forever gratitude. However if they just reference the data the same as iPhoto or Photos they are subject to corruption and possible loss of data. Which ultimately means the possibility of the loss of more of hours of my life I'll never get back!😢

But ultimately as said we have already paid a premium why should we have to spend more money buying a third party app.

There are cons of course to this method, the main one I can think of is, if you are a person that shares photos a lot, the info embedded will also be shared with this method. So if you don't want people to know your dogs name, where you live or your favourite holiday spot this method may not suit you. I don't share much, sometimes to Instagram which usually involves photos taken on my iPhone that have not been processed.

If this helps someone, brilliant that was its intention. I will certainly be checking out your suggestions, thanks

The perfect scenario is if someone from Apple takes note and make the next update special enough to be able to get rid of all the old formats for good!

Gus

iPhoto and Aperture use the same library, but even if they have separate thumbnails and previews the disk space used is a lot less than the full copies would be should I let them copy to their own library.

Good point. I should have seen that you used Aperture to open the iPhoto Library.

An interesting point on this note. You could easily find if you had copies of a particular file by searching in spotlight. It would tell you if there were any files of the same name and where there were in finder but Photos doesn't allow that now fyi.

This can be very dangerous and really I don't recommend it. For a start, Previews, Original and thumbnail can all have the same filename and so appear to be duplicates and are not.

My method isn't non-destructive but I only export once and as said I've not notice any loss in quality myself.

That works for you, but it might not for others, so you should warn people. For instance, anyone shooting Raw would have significant dataloss here.

You are correct, using a central store means I can't use iCloud but that was a conscious choice on my part

Again, fine for you but you should really warn people of the consequences of the decision.

Aperture should have been the paid for better version but although it had better editing abilities it was cluncky and slower to use all round. So in theory Photos should have taken all that was good from both and combined it all to make a worthy 'Upgrade' that should be pleasing past and new users alike and justify the huge premium we pay to be part of the Apple ecosystem

It was and I do disagree about being clunky and speed, but that's all history now. However, Photos is not an upgrade to anything. It's a whole new app for a new kind of user, and that works pretty well. It is way ahead of iPhoto in terms of its editing facilities, has the whole iCloud Library, which is never part of either Aperture or iPhoto, and uses much more automation than either. For the people it is aimed at it works pretty well. So it is well ahead of either iPhoto and Aperture for the folks it is built for. For folks like you and I, not so much. As for the cost? Really? Aperture cost you a minimum of $80 and iPhoto cost a minimum of $15. Photos is free.

As said in this thread and many others how can it be better if you omit the most used functions and make it harder for users?

Not sure how you know what the 'most used' functions are...

However if they just reference the data the same as iPhoto or Photos they are subject to corruption and possible loss of data. Which ultimately means the possibility of the loss of more of hours of my life I'll never get back!

And of course, you're forgetting the simple, easy, free solution: an up-to-date back up. Makes all of this quite unnecessary.

Today I migrated My iPhotolibrary to High Sierra. This includes thousands of pictures of drawings: my profession. In the names of the pictures is all the info that I have about my 2000 drawings, including wether I sold them, and to whom. In High Sierra this is all gone: disappeared during the migration.

Only the few names which I altered by adding an extra name after it's original name, are shown, even including the first part of the name that is missing for all other pictures. The other have no name at all. Also the ranking with starts has disappeared.

Is there any way to get back the info? I have an Time Machine backup but that is in Photoshop. I cannot put it back because there is no iPhoto in High D]Sioerra anymore. I am told to gert a compatible iPhotoversion in th Appstore butvthen the Appstore suays that it is not available in the (Dutch ) appstore. And I only have acces to the Dutch one...

and: does a Time Machine backup store the names given to the pictures while they were in Photoshop?

I would be very great full if anybody could advise my how to proceed in this unpleasant situation.

Thanks to all who have contributed to this thread. I was inquiring on behalf of my wife who uses iPhoto and she is very resistant to change. I am a Lightroom user (have also used Photo Mechanic) and feel that we should move in the Lightroom direction. Based upon the discussions, I need to devise an easy (good luck with that) migration path.

Yes, it is still in the applicationsfolder but there is a cross put on it, meaning it cannot be used.

So far I only discovered disadvantages in the new programm. Many tools from iPhoto are really missing without alternatives. Iphoto was better of you work in a professional way. Only some childish toys came in place, maybe nice for familypictures etc.. I would advice not to switch.

Thank you , yes it is there but it cannot be opened. There is a sign across the icon : a circle with a diagonal line. In OS it could still be used. I wonder if there is a way to re-download it but the app store that I must use ( the Netherlands) says that it is not available there. Maybe in the US...? I see so many disadvantages in the High Sierra photo programm. It has been turned into a nice family gadget. No longer appropriate for professional use.

If you were a professional you would not every have used iPhoto and probably would not use Photos - although Photos is much closer to a professional program than iPhoto due to the extension capability capability and greatly expanded editing ca[ability - professionals use professional programs like Aperture, LightRoom and other professional programs, not free consumer products like iPhoto or Photos

As to switching - yes you should switch since iPhoto is a dead product and will totally quit working some day forcing you to switch to something - the intelligent time to switch is now when you can do it on your own terms and at your speed rather than doing a crisis mode switch after iPhoto dies totally

LN

In the mean time my problems with the upgrading were fully solved.

No, i cannot run iPhoto in High Sierra anymore, Time Machine backups have become worthless since I cannot see them anymore ( Timemachine only shows backups made after the installation of HSierra). (To see them I must have a computer with OSX still running. Maybe an old computer you still have could be kept for this purpose for emergencies.)

my problem with the mising totles aftr installing HS was solved by using a very simple scripts saying “add file name to title” and all my “lost” info from my titles reappeared like it were magic.

Nb iPhoto regards title and filename as the same thing but Photo splits them and only takes the part that you add after importing the photo for a title. The filename however will be visible in the info-window of each photo.

So with that script I mentioned ( Foto offers it) you can easily add it to the title.

Nb after the upgrade I also had to reinstall my Mail account because it could not pick up mail anymore. After reinstalling the account all my old sent emails have disappeared permanently. Also the few names of a few contacts appeared to have been mixed by Mail.

and feel that we should move in the Lightroom direction. Based upon the discussions, I need to devise an easy (good luck with that) migration path.

Lightroom will import an iPhoto Library. Not perfectly but it will (File -> Plugin Extras). Check the Adobe website and Help for more,

Nb iPhoto regards title and filename as the same thing but Photo splits them and only takes the part that you add after importing the photo for a title. The filename however will be visible in the info-window of each photo.

No it doesn't, and they are quite different things. What iPhoto did was use the filename if no title was present. Photos doesn't do that. The script copies the filename into the title field in the metadata.

The question is why you were putting so much information into a filename...

I did never have “much”information in my titles, but significant information: a year, a followingnumber and two letters.

and besides the star ranking system gave me an opportunity to do a further identification for groups of photo’s.

As a customer, i never noticed anything about an existing difference in iPhoto between a “filename” and a “title”. Both were just the line underneath the picture. Only when installing High Sierra and Photo, this suddenly appeared to be a mayor problem with loss of information.

So: in iPhoto i had given every picture an individual and meaningfull title/ filename: to me all photos had a title.

In Photo, part of the title suddenly is not called title anymore and disappears from the title. This is why I say the title split in two parts. Now this second part is called “filename“ and I was lucky to bring it back in the title with a script. Without a specialists’ help I would never have known about this option, as probably many people will experience. Ut once you know how to do it, it is incredibly simple. So loosing info in the title would not have to be a reason to not have Photo. However, I will start looking for another way to archive my pictures.

“I did never have “much”information in my titles, but significant information: a year, a followingnumber and two letters.”

nb. That is the part that disappeared after migriting the Photolibtprary. Only in case i had added something behind this “title” after migrating, there was a title visible in Photo under the picture. In that case also the previous code was included in that title, not only the additonal part. The “original”titles, now called filenames, were only visible as extra info when opening the info window.

Hi hannssll

Many thanks as you have, through sharing your experience, inadvertently answered the original question. 'Will I lose iPhoto if I upgrade to High Sierra.'

If iPhoto is not usable in High Sierra then I would consider it lost! So the answer is Yes, you will lose iPhoto upgrading to High Sierra!

Unless anyone else can advise on a way to get iPhoto to work in HS I won't be upgrading.

For me until I have researched and found a suitable alternative that allows me to organise the way I'm happy with, with the info I want to add along with the ease iPhoto gives then I'm staying with Sierra.

Along with the other quite major concern for those thinking of upgrading is the issue that, for those that have opted (at extra expense) for systems with Fusion drives (like I did) the upgrade to High Sierra is not advised!

Link to explanation below. But in short the current version of High Sierra new file system (APFS) is built for Solid State drives (SSD) not the usual Hard disk drive (HDD) which most people have. Fusion drive are a mix of the two.

So unless you are rich enough to have invested in a system that is all SSD, you will probably be best advised to not upgrade until they release an update to HS.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonykarcz/2017/09/26/most-new-imacs-cant-benefit -from-macos-high-sierras-best-update/#4d…