no new aperture

Rob-F said:
Maybe the transition to LR won't work, and they'll have to keep aperture alive. :D

Say: Maybe if we could get enough of us outraged, abandoned users together, we could file a class action lawsuit against Apple, to force them to support Aperture. Does anyone know how many copies of Aperture are out there? How many Aperture users are being abandoned?
Click to expand...

Apple has about $150 billion dollars at it's disposal. A class action lawsuit would take a long, long time. As we know, the only people who benefit from class action law suits are attorneys. In the end you get maybe $10 (probably as an iTunes gift card). Apple hires a third-party law firm and spends a infinitesimal portion of its cash reserve. Aperture is still six feet under.

A better plan would be to start a company funded by all those who feel like you feel. Then you could buy Aperture from Apple and then sell it yourselves.
 
mynikonf2 said:
It's really sad that photography is no longer our primary concern. I have become fatigued by digital workflow savvy and the constant need to learn the next "endall" program. I feel that I no longer have possession of my images, that if I refuse to be "current" that those images will simply go away...
This is the revelation for me to preserve my work with hard copies. Not hard copies of every image but the select few that I feel best represent me as a photographer. The raw files will vanish as will I someday, I must be realistic about all of this program (money, profit) driven sinkhole that digital photography has become.

I guess I could employ someone to remain current for me (which would free me to concentrate on photography). :D
Click to expand...

I haven't changed my image processing workflow since 2006. I spend most of my time concentrating on photography. Photography today includes image processing, just like in film days it included choices in film, developer, and processing techniques.

Nothing has really changed other than the implementation details.

G
 
mynikonf2 said:
It's really sad that photography is no longer our primary concern. I have become fatigued by digital workflow savvy and the constant need to learn the next "endall" program. I feel that I no longer have possession of my images, that if I refuse to be "current" that those images will simply go away...
This is the revelation for me to preserve my work with hard copies. Not hard copies of every image but the select few that I feel best represent me as a photographer. The raw files will vanish as will I someday, I must be realistic about all of this program (money, profit) driven sinkhole that digital photography has become.

I guess I could employ someone to remain current for me (which would free me to concentrate on photography). :D
Click to expand...

All facets of technology have impacted all aspects of photography greatly during the past decade. The rate of change has been incredible. I think everyone feels fatigued to some degree at some time by this high-speed evolution.

In my case these changes created opportunity. I can take photographs and use post-production software to license images for commercial use. Some clients want Cloud access and some don't. I can conveniently share personal images via the Cloud with friends and family. Of course these features are of no importance to some and.

Your insight about printing is valuable. I started printing more work about a year ago. I found a couple of labs that do excellent work. I didn't even think about buying a printer because of the additional technology I'd have to learn and inevitable technology changes I'd have to to assimilate. So that's where I drew the line.

In terms of raw files I disagree or mis-understand you. You have complete control over your raw data. There is no need whatsoever for them to leave your possession. You rotate multiple copies hard drives in off-site location such a family members homes or even bank safety deposit boxes. Any Cloud involvement for your images, raw or rendered, is entirely voluntary.

In a way raw files are at lower risk than physical negatives.
 
willie_901 said:
All facets of technology have impacted all aspects of photography greatly during the past decade. The rate of change has been incredible. I think everyone feels fatigued to some degree at some time by this high-speed evolution.

In my case these changes created opportunity. I can take photographs and use post-production software to license images for commercial use. Some clients want Cloud access and some don't. I can conveniently share personal images via the Cloud with friends and family. Of course these features are of no importance to some and.

Your insight about printing is valuable. I started printing more work about a year ago. I found a couple of labs that do excellent work. I didn't even think about buying a printer because of the additional technology I'd have to learn and inevitable technology changes I'd have to to assimilate. So that's where I drew the line.

In terms of raw files I disagree or mis-understand you. You have complete control over your raw data. There is no need whatsoever for them to leave your possession. You rotate multiple copies hard drives in off-site location such a family members homes or even bank safety deposit boxes. Any Cloud involvement for your images, raw or rendered, is entirely voluntary.

In a way raw files are at lower risk than physical negatives.
Click to expand...

As it stands right now photo images for iCloud can only de displayed through Photo Sharing, Photo Streams, or iPad iPhoto Journals, the latter of which can, through iTunes, be saved as a website (go figure). You cannot really even view photos on iCloud from the web unless a Photo Sharing or Journal site is made public. So iCloud really has no "pro" facility and even with iWeb and MobileMe Gallery did it ever. I fact, Apple purposefully allowed Flickr and SmugMug direct access.

Apple's print service IMO have been outstanding and I sincerely hope Apple keeps these built into the new photos app.

Take a cue from iOS 8 as to what we can expect from Apple's Photos app for OS X.

1. It will allow RAW
2. It will store natively in the Cloud if enabled
3. It will have non-destructive editing
4. It will integrate with libraries on all devices
5. Third party app access

So the iOS devices will process RAW, edit RAW, store RAW, all non-destructively...if enabled. No one will force you onto the Cloud, but Aplpe makes it pretty clear that iOS devices haven't the storage space.

I expect the new Photos app to have the same dynamic. Cloud is available if you enable. RAW will be stored non-destructively allowing for editing within Photos or via third party apps.
 
Aperture has been able to publish and access photos on iCloud for some time now, but you main library is on the computer. I would never store my entire library on the internet. No way.
 
Rob-F said:
How does Apple stand to gain by crippling Aperture? There must be some money in it for them.
Click to expand...

Ceasing the development and maintenance of one product when you have another product under development that will replace it saves a lot of money.

G
 
Ansel said:
Aperture has been able to publish and access photos on iCloud for some time now, but you main library is on the computer. I would never store my entire library on the internet. No way.
Click to expand...

Agree totally. I'm going have to make a change. Not a happy camper.
 
If Apple were going to replace Aperture with Photos app they would have said so rather than signalling that Aperture is EOL with no replacement. In fact they would have kept mum about it until Photos was actually launched (they do love their surprises after all when they have something good to announce).

There is no two ways a bout it. The end of Aperture is Apple moving away from the pro/semi-pro photo software market.

If feel pretty stupid that I believed all the Apple marketing/videos about Aperture now. You know, the ones still on their webpage extolling how great Aperture is for pros. And how you will be safe moving to a Mac and using Aperture.

http://www.apple.com/aperture/action/
 
I had to move to a new computer given that my old Mac Pro was.. well.. old. I moved to LR and it was not as bad as I thought. You will all survive and thrive. DxO has some promotions going now.
 
Maybe this will teach more people that relying on a single company to support a platform never was a good strategy.
 
Apple supporting a single platform (ie mac hw plus operating system) is not the same as apple abandoning the aperture app.. Mac hw will run windows btw. In the past I have heard of people buying the mac hw and installing windows instead.

If u are talking about aperture only running on apple hw when u say single platform, I agree.. But apple abandoning aperture if it were running on windows would still be the same issue..

Gary
 
GaryLH said:
Apple supporting a single platform (ie mac hw plus operating system) is not the same as apple abandoning the aperture app.. Mac hw will run windows btw. In the past I have heard of people buying the mac hw and installing windows instead.

If u are talking about aperture only running on apple hw when u say single platform, I agree.. But apple abandoning aperture if it were running on windows would still be the same issue..

Gary
Click to expand...

Gary, I should be more clear.

What I meant was a company making software that only runs on a single proprietary OS. Apple (and Microsoft) just happen to embrace this as their philosophy and are currently very successful at it because most people never thought about the flip side of things, that is, when the support ends.

Contrast this with GIMP or Darktable.
If either of these software are no longer supported by their authors, someone can pick up the support and continually improve the software so the user base never had to go through the pain of being "forced" to switch.

By the way, I'm not an Apple hater, I used Macbook Pros and love them (because they have UNIX inside, haha...)
 
shadowfox said:
...
Contrast this with GIMP or Darktable.
If either of these software are no longer supported by their authors, someone can pick up the support and continually improve the software so the user base never had to go through the pain of being "forced" to switch. ...
Click to expand...

The other flip side of this is that neither GIMP nor Darktable have the kind of full-fledged end-user support efforts behind them that most end-users want. You can get support, sure, if you look hard enough. And if their custodians drop development, you have to get lucky that some other custodian picks up the ball and continues development. GIMP, despite being around almost forever, is still lacking basic features and ease of use that would make it acceptable to the majority of users who use Aperture.

G
 
Godfrey said:
The other flip side of this is that neither GIMP nor Darktable have the kind of full-fledged end-user support efforts behind them that most end-users want. You can get support, sure, if you look hard enough. And if their custodians drop development, you have to get lucky that some other custodian picks up the ball and continues development. GIMP, despite being around almost forever, is still lacking basic features and ease of use that would make it acceptable to the majority of users who use Aperture.

G
Click to expand...

"Lucky" is debatable.

Picking up an open source code happens everyday in the OS -sphere. Why? because that is integral to the philosophy of the OS community, it's not at a whim or financial "sense" of a particular company.

I would be really surprised if no one picks up GIMP if it ever be abandoned. Darktable is less known, but if Apple and Adobe keep up their antics, soon it'll be a real contender. :)
 
Just switched to Pixa and now I feel liberated. http://www.pixa-app.com

Aperture started to turn sluggish since I started throwing 7200 DPI .tiff scans at it, might be expected. Also doing whatever editing within Aperture..

Thought I could make better use of my i7 1,7 GHz + 8 GB 1600 MHz MacBook Air. Had already been looking for something more simple and with less functions. Pixa in combination with Photoshop (until Pixelmator handles Batching) works perfectly for my needs :)

I exported all Originals out of Aperture (redoing all editing:)) maintaining the same folder structure I already had within Aperture projects. Set up a Pixa 'Live Folder', and there I had it. My library nice and sorted (possibly even naked).

First thing was to take care of 250~ negatives and turn them to positives. Done in no time by dropping the files from the finder onto my Photoshop 'Action droplet' or whatever they're called. Photoshop runs the batch, inverting colours and saves them. I checked how fast the Live Folder in Pixa would take before updating the preview on each picture. It was pretty much instant.

Simple clean operation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom