A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

OSX Photos, and the worst of all things preceeding it



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 20th 15, 09:59 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default OSX Photos, and the worst of all things preceeding it

So with El Capitan, Photos for the Mac is finally more or less "done". And what
did we get? Well, pretty much nothing. Photo management for kids, perhaps.

With extensions finally arriving, we quickly learned how poorly they were imple
mented. Some thought (for reasons unknown) that the extensions was going to be
non-destructive, which they are not. You make non-destructive adjustments to a
photo and then apply an extension, which leads to a "Processing image" before the
extension is loaded, meaning the extension is working with a rendered image. When
you apply the effects of the extension and save the changes, you have a new image
in Photos in place of the old - without adjustments. Your only choice is to re
vert to original if you want to adjust any of the earlier adjusments which then
have to be re-added. Much like how iPhoto worked.

This is, of course, 100% like I said it would work. To make extensions part of
the adjustments chains is very hard if not impossible.

And what extensions do we have? Well, it's hard to say. There is no "Get exten
sions" menu in Photos to easily see what is available, and the Mac App Store
doesn't seem to have it as a choice anywhere I can see. Searching the Mac App
Store for "Photos extension" yields five hits, and the one extension I do have
(Pixelmator Distort, since I own Pixelmator) is not amongst it, so it's safe to
say that this isn't the method to be used to find extension. And of those five
hits, only one of them seems to actually be an extension. So we're left iwth a
****-poor implementation of extensions and a ****-poor way to even find those ex
tensions.

So what are we left with, then? Well, for someone moving from iPhoto to Photos,
there isn't much of a speed boost. Photos on a mechanical drive with 30K photos
is still pretty slow in scrolling and viewing photos. There might be a slight
difference, but not by much.

As I've mentioned before, we've also lost the ability to sync with online social
media services, like Flickr and Facebook to easily edit, share and view feedback
directly in the application. Photos exclusively uses the system "share" function
which is one way only.

There is also no way to copy and paste adjustments from one photo to another, so
if you want to apply the same changes to several photos, well, I hope you've got
some time over.

As I've said before, rating is also completely gone, and you only have the choice
of "hearting" or favoriting a photo or not. So no vacation photos with various
degrees of ratings and smart albums with the five stars and another with three or
more stars, etc. Like I said, photo management for kids.

Apple has severely crippled drag and drop in Photos. I have been complaining
about the really poor drag and drop support in Lightroom before, but Photos does
this equally bad, but in different ways. I'm not sure how they're doing it, but
you can drag a photo from Photos to the desktop, Messages and to an open email
window, but that's pretty much it. It seems the receiving end needs to be aware
of a special drag operation that Photos is using, it's not a file-proxy-drag like
in iPhoto or Aperture. Lightroom also uses a file-proxy drag and drop, but to the
*original* file, not the processed preview file which iPhoto and Aperture does.
So, using Lightroom and iPhoto, you can't drag and drop a photo from Photos to an
IM application that you can drag files to in the same manner, which is really re
ally poor.

Smart albums in iPhoto weren't super advanced, but they're even more lightweight
in Photos, where only the most superficial data is selectable, making smart al
bums (smart collections in LR) even less useful. The master of smart albums here
is Aperture, which had such a comprehensive set of selectable data that Photos,
iPhoto and Lightroom could only dream of.

So Photos - still a huge disappointment for us that know that Apple knows how to
make a kickass photo management application. Bleh.

--
Sandman
  #2  
Old October 20th 15, 11:54 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
android
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,854
Default OSX Photos, and the worst of all things preceeding it

In article ,
Sandman wrote:

So with El Capitan, Photos for the Mac is finally more or less "done". And
what
did we get? Well, pretty much nothing. Photo management for kids, perhaps.

With extensions finally arriving, we quickly learned how poorly they were
imple
mented. Some thought (for reasons unknown) that the extensions was going to
be
non-destructive, which they are not. You make non-destructive adjustments to
a
photo and then apply an extension, which leads to a "Processing image" before
the
extension is loaded, meaning the extension is working with a rendered image.
When
you apply the effects of the extension and save the changes, you have a new
image
in Photos in place of the old - without adjustments. Your only choice is to
re
vert to original if you want to adjust any of the earlier adjusments which
then
have to be re-added. Much like how iPhoto worked.

This is, of course, 100% like I said it would work. To make extensions part
of
the adjustments chains is very hard if not impossible.

And what extensions do we have? Well, it's hard to say. There is no "Get
exten
sions" menu in Photos to easily see what is available, and the Mac App Store
doesn't seem to have it as a choice anywhere I can see. Searching the Mac App
Store for "Photos extension" yields five hits, and the one extension I do
have
(Pixelmator Distort, since I own Pixelmator) is not amongst it, so it's safe
to
say that this isn't the method to be used to find extension. And of those
five
hits, only one of them seems to actually be an extension. So we're left iwth
a
****-poor implementation of extensions and a ****-poor way to even find those
ex
tensions.

So what are we left with, then? Well, for someone moving from iPhoto to
Photos,
there isn't much of a speed boost. Photos on a mechanical drive with 30K
photos
is still pretty slow in scrolling and viewing photos. There might be a slight
difference, but not by much.

As I've mentioned before, we've also lost the ability to sync with online
social
media services, like Flickr and Facebook to easily edit, share and view
feedback
directly in the application. Photos exclusively uses the system "share"
function
which is one way only.

There is also no way to copy and paste adjustments from one photo to another,
so
if you want to apply the same changes to several photos, well, I hope you've
got
some time over.

As I've said before, rating is also completely gone, and you only have the
choice
of "hearting" or favoriting a photo or not. So no vacation photos with
various
degrees of ratings and smart albums with the five stars and another with
three or
more stars, etc. Like I said, photo management for kids.

Apple has severely crippled drag and drop in Photos. I have been complaining
about the really poor drag and drop support in Lightroom before, but Photos
does
this equally bad, but in different ways. I'm not sure how they're doing it,
but
you can drag a photo from Photos to the desktop, Messages and to an open
email
window, but that's pretty much it. It seems the receiving end needs to be
aware
of a special drag operation that Photos is using, it's not a file-proxy-drag
like
in iPhoto or Aperture. Lightroom also uses a file-proxy drag and drop, but to
the
*original* file, not the processed preview file which iPhoto and Aperture
does.
So, using Lightroom and iPhoto, you can't drag and drop a photo from Photos
to an
IM application that you can drag files to in the same manner, which is really
re
ally poor.

Smart albums in iPhoto weren't super advanced, but they're even more
lightweight
in Photos, where only the most superficial data is selectable, making smart
al
bums (smart collections in LR) even less useful. The master of smart albums
here
is Aperture, which had such a comprehensive set of selectable data that
Photos,
iPhoto and Lightroom could only dream of.

So Photos - still a huge disappointment for us that know that Apple knows how
to
make a kickass photo management application. Bleh.


Oki...
--
teleportation kills
  #3  
Old October 20th 15, 08:50 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Kevin McMurtrie[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 108
Default OSX Photos, and the worst of all things preceeding it

It's all about the walled garden and making life stupid-simple. I
figure Apple will slowly seal itself off from the rest of the world and
collapse into a small invisible cult. It's a shame because there was a
time when Apple was the champion of open standards and simple
interconnectivity.

--
I will not see posts from astraweb, theremailer, dizum, or google
because they host Usenet flooders.
  #4  
Old October 20th 15, 10:08 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default OSX Photos, and the worst of all things preceeding it

On 2015-10-20 08:59:43 +0000, Sandman said:

So with El Capitan, Photos for the Mac is finally more or less "done". And what
did we get? Well, pretty much nothing. Photo management for kids, perhaps.


apple was done with any sort of professional photo management and
editing software when they suspended develoment on Aperture.

For anybody involved in serious photo asset management and editing
Photos is a sad joke, and nothing is going to save it, certainly not
any extensions forced to run on a POS.

While Jon Ive did great things for Apple with the iPod, and iPhone, in
the post-Jobs era, his minimalist philosophy has seriously damaged many
other aspects of the Apple product range including Photos, which is
aimed at the iPhone, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter clientele.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #5  
Old October 20th 15, 10:47 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default OSX Photos, and the worst of all things preceeding it

On 2015-10-20 15:50, Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
It's all about the walled garden and making life stupid-simple. I
figure Apple will slowly seal itself off from the rest of the world and
collapse into a small invisible cult. It's a shame because there was a
time when Apple was the champion of open standards and simple
interconnectivity.


I'm all for Apple being walled-garden on the iOS side. Those are
appliances of convenience to me and I don't want to be spending a lot of
time maintaining or protecting them. I back my iPhone up via iTunes and
that's it (in turn backed up regularly). Occasionally offload photos to
my "Pictures" folder.

On the OS X side you are as free as you've always been except for recent
tightening of access to some system folders (not even root can change
anything in there anymore... [see: OS X system integrity protection]).
Apps are not restrained - though some apps from Apple are getting dumbed
down while increasing their interconnectedness with other Apple devices
and services.

(If you use Notes/Messages/Reminders and Mail as much as I do, you
really appreciate that part of it whether on a Mac or iOS and esp. both).

As to collapsing into a small invisible cult - don't hold you breath.
  #6  
Old October 20th 15, 11:23 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default OSX Photos, and the worst of all things preceeding it

In article ,
Sandman wrote:


So Photos - still a huge disappointment for us that know that Apple knows how to
make a kickass photo management application. Bleh.


you're not its target market.
  #7  
Old October 20th 15, 11:45 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default OSX Photos, and the worst of all things preceeding it

On 2015-10-20 22:23:41 +0000, nospam said:

In article ,
Sandman wrote:


So Photos - still a huge disappointment for us that know that Apple
knows how to
make a kickass photo management application. Bleh.


you're not its target market.


What market? Its target is every OSX user. It is free and an integrated
part of OSX. If you are an OSX user you are going to have it on your
computer even if you don't want it. Then you have to employ avoidance
tactics to stop it from intruding where it is not needed.

The truth is, it is a huge disapointment given that Apple once had a
very good pro level application in Aperture and **** canned it. For
those of us who are LR users, we lucked out, now Photos is just an
irritation like a chronic rash.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #8  
Old October 20th 15, 11:59 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default OSX Photos, and the worst of all things preceeding it

In article 2015102015451228245-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

So Photos - still a huge disappointment for us that know that Apple
knows how to make a kickass photo management application. Bleh.


you're not its target market.


What market? Its target is every OSX user. It is free and an integrated
part of OSX. If you are an OSX user you are going to have it on your
computer even if you don't want it. Then you have to employ avoidance
tactics to stop it from intruding where it is not needed.


the target market is casual users who do not need the power and
capabilities of a pro-level product.

those who want something more capable can buy lightroom or something
else that better fits their needs.

expecting apple to include something on the level of lightroom or
aperture with every mac entirely for free is ludicrous.

The truth is, it is a huge disapointment given that Apple once had a
very good pro level application in Aperture and **** canned it. For
those of us who are LR users, we lucked out, now Photos is just an
irritation like a chronic rash.


aperture wasn't included with every mac.

apple killed aperture because it was a market failure. it should not be
a big surprise that a product that does not sell well is discontinued.
  #9  
Old October 21st 15, 12:11 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default OSX Photos, and the worst of all things preceeding it

On 2015-10-20 22:59:04 +0000, nospam said:

In article 2015102015451228245-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

So Photos - still a huge disappointment for us that know that Apple
knows how to make a kickass photo management application. Bleh.

you're not its target market.


What market? Its target is every OSX user. It is free and an integrated
part of OSX. If you are an OSX user you are going to have it on your
computer even if you don't want it. Then you have to employ avoidance
tactics to stop it from intruding where it is not needed.


the target market is casual users who do not need the power and
capabilities of a pro-level product.


However, Apple alienated a group of Aperture users, who had the power
capabilities and had them taken from them.

those who want something more capable can buy lightroom or something
else that better fits their needs.


I have been using LR since the Beta. However, many loyal Apple users
paid good money for Aperture, and had the rug pulled out from under
them.

expecting apple to include something on the level of lightroom or
aperture with every mac entirely for free is ludicrous.


Agreed. That was why some folks bought Aperture, which was not inexpensive.

The truth is, it is a huge disapointment given that Apple once had a
very good pro level application in Aperture and **** canned it. For
those of us who are LR users, we lucked out, now Photos is just an
irritation like a chronic rash.


aperture wasn't included with every mac.


Nobody expected it to be.

apple killed aperture because it was a market failure. it should not be
a big surprise that a product that does not sell well is discontinued.


They let it sit on the shelf gathering dust for 40 months without
adding refinements, and developing new features. They let it die on the
vine because they were not prepared to compete.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #10  
Old October 21st 15, 12:50 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,254
Default OSX Photos, and the worst of all things preceeding it

On 10/20/2015 5:08 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-10-20 08:59:43 +0000, Sandman said:

So with El Capitan, Photos for the Mac is finally more or less "done".
And what
did we get? Well, pretty much nothing. Photo management for kids,
perhaps.


apple was done with any sort of professional photo management and
editing software when they suspended develoment on Aperture.

For anybody involved in serious photo asset management and editing
Photos is a sad joke, and nothing is going to save it, certainly not any
extensions forced to run on a POS.

While Jon Ive did great things for Apple with the iPod, and iPhone, in
the post-Jobs era, his minimalist philosophy has seriously damaged many
other aspects of the Apple product range including Photos, which is
aimed at the iPhone, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter clientele.

My guess is that Apple is seeking to replace Kodak as the godfather of
simple easy photos strictly as memories. It's a valid business plan,
provided that management doesn't make the same mistake of complacency
tht Kodak made.


--
PeterN
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Current worst things about the systems David Taylor Digital Photography 5 January 19th 14 08:21 PM
Taking photos of industrial things with D80 Ignoramus20727 Digital Photography 16 May 24th 08 10:23 PM
Worst Photoshop Ever Pat Digital Photography 10 November 6th 07 03:18 AM
MAY THE WORST MAN WIN ! fred Digital Photography 15 October 19th 06 04:09 PM
Worst photo ever taken Frank ess Digital Photography 19 September 8th 04 05:51 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.