TechCrunch story

Oh FFS. It was pretty much obvious they had but still. I have a long developed aversion to giving Adobe money, so I can't be renting LightRoom. Is there any decent alternative to the two that anyone knows of? Anyone using the word 'Gimp' will be pointed and laughed at.

Jon

A few.

Capture One Pro - 114 EURO.
Darktable - Free.
DxO Optics Pro - £79. I liked it so much I bought it.

Think it's a bit early for people to be shouting and wailing on social media, which of course is what many are doing. Aperture will likely continue to function for a long time yet, and we don't yet know the full details of the new Photos for Mac app in development, which will probably replace both Aperture and iPhoto in one app - we've only seen a brief preview so far. Apple would be foolish to dumb it down to iPhoto's level, though dafter things have happened (iWork anyone).

All we know is that Apple have said it will be compatible with existing Aperture libraries. So, nothing to worry about, right? Well, let's wait and see as they say. I certainly wouldn't rush to find a replacement just yet.

Well, while I see the point, you've rather punctured your own argument there. I think it's very unlikely Photo for Mac will be the equal of Aperture. Half way between iPhoto and Aperture is like a car that's half way between a Fiat Multipla and a Ferrari F430. They're both basically doing the same job, but the truth is you wouldn't use the one if you wanted the best features of the other, whichever way round you wanted it. As you say, Apple's recent record of taking it's 'serious' software and updating it is very patchy indeed - not only the iWork kerfuffle, look what happened with Final Cut Pro X...


Um, no. the fact Photo will be able to import Aperture's libraries is really not much help at all if it can't do the jobs Aperture is used for. Why would I care if it can import old files if it's no use to work with new ones?


Oh, it's got a bit of legs in it yet. However if you're planning on buying a new DSLR in say a couple of years, You probably shouldn't expect to be able to import the RAW files into Aperture at that point. And at that point, you've pretty much got to move if you're a half-serious photographer.

The simple fact is this : It's very, very unlikely IMO that Photo for Mac will be sufficiently powerful even for moderately 'prosumer' photography. That assumption being the case, the sooner you get off Aperture to something with a probability of support into the future the better for you.

Jon

Well, that was meant to be tongue in cheek - we need a tongue in cheek smiley!


Don't Apple patch RAW support separately, at the system level, through the App Store Software Update? That should at least mean you can import and work with RAW files on newer cameras.

But I do take your point about the features of the Photos app, importing is one thing but working with them is quite another. Like I say, it's far too early to have any knee jerk reactions to this "news", if indeed that is what it is. I'm reserving judgement until we know more about where they're pitching this new app, as any sensible and sane person should, especially if your income relies on the software you use. I certainly wouldn't rush to line Adobe's pockets, that's for sure!

At the moment you can still download a full-featured version of Lr without needing to pay anything for the Creative Cloud bollocks.

Mark

'at the moment'.

Things to consider:
Are your camera RAW files presently supported by both Apple and your software of choice?
Are you considering an imminent camera upgrade?
If so, to what?
Is there RAW support available both in the OS and in the software (and believe me, one does not guarantee the other)?

Adobe haven't 'yet' moved LR onto CC. Who's to say they will? Maybe next year. Maybe never.

The immediate question should be:
Is my camera supported?
Does my present software support it?
If it's yes to both those things, then there's no need to panic.

Eventually, I imagine that there will be an OS update that renders Aperture unusable.
At which point you will have to consider your options. However, immediately throwing your arms up in despair is fairly futile, especially when there's good alternatives around.
Importing your old RAW files - yes, it'll be a hassle. However, if they're images you refer to a lot, then you should probably have the JPEGs ready to go for your purposes and the job is done.
So long as the original RAW files persist somewhere, you're fine.

I'll go out on a limb and suggest that so long as Apple don't screw up the file management (I'm looking at you iPhoto) then the new software probably won't suck.
FCP X didn't suck half as much as people would have you believe, it was just different.
Wait and see, wait and see, as always.

In the meantime, my combo of LR and DxO keeps me happy for the most part. Until an OS update breaks either, I've little reason to update.

I try not to wait for 'maybe' to become 'today' because by then it's usually too late.


Well, there's no need to stop using it today. That doesn't mean you shouldn't start planning how to move away from it. You certainly shouldn't wait to do that until the day it stops working.


'Unusable' is a continuum, there may be one feature you (or I) rely on that still works for years to come. And Apple have guaranteed to keep Aperture working with OS X Yosemite. However given their yearly update schedule, I think we must assume you're looking at that guarantee lasting about 15 months. After that point, you're taking pot luck about what breaks or doesn't, until some point in the further future on when the thing fails to run at all.


No, if you're at all smart you consider your options before that point. At that point, it's too late.


I'm not sure there are - again, by a variable definition of 'good' - which is why I asked.


For some variable value of 'a hassle' which range from 'fairly automatic' to 'completely impossible'. Wouldn't it be better to find out where on that scale you are before you have an immediate pressing need to do it?


Really? You think JPEGs are as much use as RAWs?


So long as you can still access and, if necessary, work with them. Having the files on disk of itself is no use at all, if you can't load them into Aperture because that was the first thing that broke.


So provided Apple don't do something they've already done several times, everything will be OK? Well, I'm reassured.


He who hesitates is lost.


Er... so you're not actually an Aperture user anyway? Well, yes, in that case I can see why Aperture being binned wouldn't cause you a lot of concern.

Indeed, hence the list of alternatives I provided for those of you who don't want to use the frankly brilliant LR.


If you're reliant on a single feature (which let's face it, in photo editing software there just isn't at this point in time), I'd be fascinated to hear what it is.


There are several.



At most it'll cost you time, assuming you've the original RAW files tucked away somewhere.



Of course not, my point was that if you're in some circumstance which requires to keep returning repeatedly to the same RAW file, you're doing it wrong.
You may have a PSD (or equivalent) file you keep coming back to, but I'd be surprised if you're repeatedly returning to the same RAW file over and over and over and over over a period of months or years.



Which is the reason for the discussion isn't it? Alternatives to Aperture?



He who hesitates often makes a smarter move. The software won't necessarily break over night just because Apple roll out a new doodad to edit photos in. If it does, then you move to your other option. Why jump before you need to? Get a lay of the land before making any investments.



No, I'm not, and if LR was switched off tomorrow, I'd take my folders full of RAW files and chuck them into something else. So long as that something else can also read any accompanying .xmp files with the edits, it shouldn't be a huge headache apart from me cursing the speed of my machine and the time it'll take. And that said, the likelihood of having to return to an image I shot years ago is unlikely - those shots have long since served their purpose.
If I did have to, then I'd almost certainly want another pass at them before they went out the door, in which case I have shiny new alternative software to do it with. All I'd have to do is get it looking like the original, which probably isn't going to be a huge headache unless I've spent hours in Photoshop making edits - which has nothing to do with my RAW handling and everything to do with very specific post production.

Ultimately, there are good, powerful (better even) programs to push RAW files around with. Yes, it'll suck when Aperture breaks but it's nothing new in the world of computers. Your value isn't in an Aperture catalogue, it's in your RAW files themselves.

I don't understand. I've been using Aperture since I can't remember. The whole point is I use RAW throughout. The libraries contain RAW files, I edit RAW files. The whole non-destructive editing process is the point. Of course I keep returning to the same RAW file, but it's through the filter of the adjustments and edits I've made. I can undo the whole shebang and reprocess the RAW file from scratch if I want to.

Lightroom does the same.

The only point where a JPEG appears is when I have to share a copy of the final edit, and even then the JPEG never stays in the Aperture world. I delete them when they've been shared, or uploaded somewhere. I have no use for JPEGs, as I have the RAW file originals.

Meanwhile, this comment on the "Aperture is dead, oh noes" theme makes for a sensible read.

https://www.apertureexpert.com/tips/201 ... 6-yGsZORGI

I think I'm not quite getting why you're returning to old edits when you've finished them. The job is done, surely? Even if you need to go on a process further, a JPEG is much lighter to throw around than, for example, using a RAW file in Photoshop as a Smart Object to retain your edits.
As an aside, as far as the whole RAW/JPEG thing goes, I know a few wedding photographers who shoot in JPEG, because they know how to get the best from the situation on the day. Their post processing is much more lightweight, and they have happy clients.

The fact I don't - currently - revisit old RAW files doesn't mean I may not wish to. I'm not so hard up for storage that I feel a need to dump out the "negative" in favour of keeping the "print".

I know pro wedding photographers will use JPEG. That's fine. Their business is all about the speed, really. Provided they can get the shot in camera, they will be winning. I still like to try to capture the scene first time, but I like the idea I can return to the original and make adjustments I didn't consider when I first made my edits. I use a RAW workflow, with full res JPEGs as the final output only if they're needed. If I upload to Flickr, it's done from within Aperture, so the conversion is done at that stage.

Be that as it may, and always remembering that I shall avoid Adobe software for as long as I can (murdering FreeHand is one grudge I will bear to my dying breath), I will continue to use Aperture until it no longer works. As I say, I shall look at alternatives in the meantime, Lightroom being last and least.

I'd encourage you to look at the DxO stuff if Adobe doesn't float your boat. Capture One also has excellent write ups.
Looking around, as the various controls in Aperture don't translate easily into LR (or anything else I'd imagine) there is no simple way of moving your catalogue and retaining your edits, at the moment.
This is one solution to migrating, but it sounds like a proper PITA.

A fairly good comparison is here - http://www.lifeafterphotoshop.com/dxo-vs-lightroom-vs-capture-one-pro-best/ - but it's scratching the surface in some regards.
In fact, this article on the same site is well worth a read.

Thanks, Alex.

I shall spend the next year or so evaluating my options. It may well be that Photos.app will do everything I actually need, but it does no harm to peer outside to see what alternatives there are.

I could simply leave Aperture running on a legacy Mac, and start new libraries on the new regime. We'll see. There won't be a shortage of information about migrating from Aperture, that's for certain!