If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Something positive about Photos.app
So, it's no secret I loathe the new Photos app for OSX since it's so feature-
weak and slow to use. But there is something that Photos does that no other photo management app does, which I think is awesome. Cloud sync. "Ah", I hear you say, "Lightroom does Cloud sync also!". Which is true, but Lightroom cloud sync sucks big time. Lightroom cloud sync is an afterthought patched on to an application that didn't have it from the start. Not so with Photos, which was built from the ground up to be a cloud application. So, what difference does it make? Well, Lightroom has the "Lightroom mobile" function, which is their implementation of what iPhoto/iOS earlier called Photostream. Basically, from mobile it can upload all your photos to the cloud, which is then later downloaded to Lightroom and any changes are synced between the devices via CC. Problem is that you can't sync your entire photo library. Syncing is per collection. And you can't sync smart collections. Furthermore, syncing from the iPhone/iPad is done with the Lightroom app, which need to be started and running to do so, it doesn't do it in the background seamlessly. Also, it only syncs JPG, or at least I assume this is due to LR Mobile, but it might be due to RAW files not actually being on the iPad/iPhone to begin with. Photos on the other hand, manages this perfectly. Just tick the box to activate iCloud Photos and my entire 40k+ photo library s whisked up into the cloud. Every single photo available to me on my iOS devices at any point in time (where I have internet). Also, when on my laptop, Photos manages the restricted storage space with ease even so, and Photos on OSX there becomes like Photos on iOS, where I can access any photo I've ever taken at any point, but not all are stored on my small hard drive. It's pretty genius and really well done by Apple. It's a shame the application is next to useless apart from this. -- Sandman |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Something positive about Photos.app
On Jan 14, 2016, Sandman wrote
(in ): So, it's no secret I loathe the new Photos app for OSX since it's so feature- weak and slow to use. But there is something that Photos does that no other photo management app does, which I think is awesome. Cloud sync. "Ah", I hear you say, "Lightroom does Cloud sync also!". Which is true, but Lightroom cloud sync sucks big time. Lightroom cloud sync is an afterthought patched on to an application that didn't have it from the start. Not so with Photos, which was built from the ground up to be a cloud application. So, what difference does it make? Well, Lightroom has the "Lightroom mobile" function, which is their implementation of what iPhoto/iOS earlier called Photostream. Basically, from mobile it can upload all your photos to the cloud, which is then later downloaded to Lightroom and any changes are synced between the devices via CC. Not really, Abobe goes about things quite differently. The selected Lightroom Collections are synced with LR Mobile and only Smart Previews are synced to LR Mobile not JPEGs or RAW files. Problem is that you can't sync your entire photo library. Syncing is per collection. And you can't sync smart collections. Furthermore, syncing from the iPhone/iPad is done with the Lightroom app, which need to be started and running to do so, it doesn't do it in the background seamlessly. Also, it only syncs JPG, or at least I assume this is due to LR Mobile, but it might be due to RAW files not actually being on the iPad/iPhone to begin with. All LR Mobile sees are links to Smart Previews. The only time RAW/JPEGs are involved is if you have an LR Mobile collection on your mobile device designated for “Auto Add” where images shot with the device are synced to the desktop. This action will sync the full iOS/Android device image file to your desktop LR andf maintain them in LR Collections. Photos on the other hand, manages this perfectly. Just tick the box to activate iCloud Photos and my entire 40k+ photo library s whisked up into the cloud. Every single photo available to me on my iOS devices at any point in time (where I have internet). 40K+? WTF would you need access to your entire 40K+ library? ....and how much iCloud space does that eat up for you? Also, when on my laptop, Photos manages the restricted storage space with ease even so, and Photos on OSX there becomes like Photos on iOS, where I can access any photo I've ever taken at any point, but not all are stored on my small hard drive. It's pretty genius and really well done by Apple. It's a shame the application is next to useless apart from this. What is a shame is Apple abandoning its role in advanced graphics processing and management software, becoming a mere platform for developers producing the workhorse apps available today. Ultimately the point is, it is totally unnecessary to have access to every shot you have ever taken at any given moment. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Something positive about Photos.app
In article m, Savageduck
wrote: Sandman: So, it's no secret I loathe the new Photos app for OSX since it's so feature- weak and slow to use. But there is something that Photos does that no other photo management app does, which I think is awesome. Cloud sync. "Ah", I hear you say, "Lightroom does Cloud sync also!". Which is true, but Lightroom cloud sync sucks big time. Lightroom cloud sync is an afterthought patched on to an application that didn't have it from the start. Not so with Photos, which was built from the ground up to be a cloud application. So, what difference does it make? Well, Lightroom has the "Lightroom mobile" function, which is their implementation of what iPhoto/iOS earlier called Photostream. Basically, from mobile it can upload all your photos to the cloud, which is then later downloaded to Lightroom and any changes are synced between the devices via CC. Not really, Abobe goes about things quite differently. The selected Lightroom Collections are synced with LR Mobile and only Smart Previews are synced to LR Mobile not JPEGs or RAW files. Right... not sure how that differs from what I wrote above though? Sandman: Problem is that you can't sync your entire photo library. Syncing is per collection. And you can't sync smart collections. Furthermore, syncing from the iPhone/iPad is done with the Lightroom app, which need to be started and running to do so, it doesn't do it in the background seamlessly. Also, it only syncs JPG, or at least I assume this is due to LR Mobile, but it might be due to RAW files not actually being on the iPad/iPhone to begin with. All LR Mobile sees are links to Smart Previews. Not "links" to Smart Previews - the smart previews are uploaded to the cloud and that's what LR Mobile uses, and any edits to these smart previews are applied to the original when synced. But I was talking about photos that come from iOS and then to Lightroom via Lightroom mobile. I.e.: iPhone camera - Lightroom Mobile - Cloud - Lightroom = JPG, of obvious reasons Camera RAW - Photos OSX - Cloud - Photos iOS - LR Mobile - Cloud - Lightroom = Also JPG, but unsure whether this is due to iOS Photos or LR Mobile. The only time RAW/JPEGs are involved is if you have an LR Mobile collection on your mobile device designated for ??Auto Add? where images shot with the device are synced to the desktop. This action will sync the full iOS/Android device image file to your desktop LR andf maintain them in LR Collections. Can't say anything about Android, but there are no RAW images from the iPhone camera, all photos - whether they come from the smart phone camera or is synced from your Lightroom library on your PC are JPG's. Sandman: Photos on the other hand, manages this perfectly. Just tick the box to activate iCloud Photos and my entire 40k+ photo library s whisked up into the cloud. Every single photo available to me on my iOS devices at any point in time (where I have internet). 40K+? WTF would you need access to your entire 40K+ library? The more important question is - why *shouldn't* I? The answer is quite simple - a system that leaves manual picking and choosing what to keep in sync is a good system. With iCloud, this is all seamless. If your photos are in OS X Photos and you have iCloud Photos enabled, your entire photo library is automatically backed up instantly, plus available on all your other devices in its entirety. ...and how much iCloud space does that eat up for you? Not sure where I can check that actually - but I have purchased additional space. Sandman: Also, when on my laptop, Photos manages the restricted storage space with ease even so, and Photos on OSX there becomes like Photos on iOS, where I can access any photo I've ever taken at any point, but not all are stored on my small hard drive. It's pretty genius and really well done by Apple. It's a shame the application is next to useless apart from this. What is a shame is Apple abandoning its role in advanced graphics processing and management software, becoming a mere platform for developers producing the workhorse apps available today. Ultimately the point is, it is totally unnecessary to have access to every shot you have ever taken at any given moment. Well, I obviously disagree. Just the other day someone wrote about my "Sweden is beautiful" thread and I started to talk about other places in Sweden that are beautiful, like Lysekil and Smgen, from which I have photos. But since my mobile hard drive was at work at the time, I couldn't quickly fire up LR to search for it. With Photos and iCloud, I can. At any point in time, from anywhere in the world, I can access any photo I've ever taken if I used iCloud. It's pretty awesome! Now, if only Photos for OSX could become a worthy iPhoto successor, then I'd be pretty happy with it. -- Sandman |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Something positive about Photos.app
On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 14:24:56 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote: Corel's photo program was far weaker than Photoshop in-terms of overall capabilities, but it did have one major feature I loved. It had a dust removal feature than worked fantastically well without reducing resolution. Now, if only programs were modular, and inter-operable... Corel's method of dealing with geometrical/perspective errors is superior to anything else I have used other than DxO Viewpoint, which uses an enhanced version of the same basic method. But Corel came up with it first. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Positive discrimination. | DanP | Digital Photography | 17 | October 24th 12 04:52 PM |
A positive form negative | Peter Irwin | In The Darkroom | 9 | October 28th 08 01:53 AM |
A positive form negative | Richard Knoppow | In The Darkroom | 0 | August 29th 08 11:11 PM |
I have something positive to say about the Moskba 5 | [email protected] | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 7 | April 11th 06 04:36 AM |
Feeling more positive... | Martin Francis | Digital SLR Cameras | 5 | November 21st 05 08:51 PM |