Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #61672 > unrolled thread

Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-07-01 20:06 -0700
    Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2014-07-01 20:54 -0700
      Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-07-02 04:19 +0000
        Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Beli <baiheli.pip@xs4all.nl> - 2014-07-02 08:59 +0200
          Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-07-02 13:23 +0000
    Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Beli <baiheli.pip@xs4all.nl> - 2014-07-02 08:56 +0200
      Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-07-02 09:54 +0100
        Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-07-02 10:25 -0700
          Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-07-02 19:10 +0100
            Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-07-02 11:30 -0700
          Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-07-04 08:25 +0200
            Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-07-04 15:52 -0400
              Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-07-04 14:49 -0700
                Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-07-04 18:05 -0400
                  Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Beli <baiheli.pip@xs4all.nl> - 2014-07-05 09:35 +0200
                    Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2014-07-05 12:27 -0400
                Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2014-07-04 18:51 -0700
                  Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-07-04 19:01 -0700
                    Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2014-07-04 19:54 -0700
                      Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-07-04 23:07 -0400
                      Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-07-05 03:09 +0000
                        Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-07-04 23:15 -0400
                      Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-07-05 03:20 +0000
                      Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-07-05 02:04 -0400
                  Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-07-04 22:14 -0400
                    Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-07-04 22:34 -0400
                      Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-07-05 02:59 +0000
                        Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2014-07-05 02:57 -0400
                          Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-07-05 07:53 +0000
                            Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2014-07-05 20:19 -0400
                          Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-07-05 07:18 -0700
                      Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-07-04 23:07 -0400
                      Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-07-05 03:13 +0000
                  Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-07-05 02:49 +0000
                    Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-07-04 20:02 -0700
                  Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-07-05 03:04 +0000
                    Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-07-05 02:08 -0400
                      Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2014-07-05 18:37 +1200
                        Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-07-05 03:41 -0400
                          Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-07-05 15:07 +0000
                            Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-07-05 14:15 -0400
                          Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2014-07-06 14:59 +1200
                            Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-07-06 02:42 -0400
                              Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2014-07-05 23:51 -0700
                              Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2014-07-06 23:59 +1200
                      Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-07-05 07:16 -0700
    Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2014-07-02 09:01 +0000
      Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos billy@MIX.COM - 2014-07-02 15:55 +0000
        Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2014-07-02 09:05 -0700
        Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2014-07-02 18:06 +0000
          Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-07-02 15:11 -0400
            Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2014-07-02 19:56 +0000
              Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-07-02 17:37 -0700
                Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2014-07-03 05:31 +0000
                  Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-07-04 16:06 -0400
                    Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2014-07-05 09:11 +0000
        Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-07-02 22:39 +0000
      Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2014-07-02 09:04 -0700
        Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2014-07-02 12:44 -0400
          Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2014-07-02 09:53 -0700
            Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2014-07-02 15:16 -0400
              Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2014-07-02 12:32 -0700
                Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-07-02 17:24 -0700
                Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2014-07-02 22:49 -0400
                  Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-07-02 21:01 -0700
        Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2014-07-02 18:11 +0000
          Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-07-02 15:11 -0400
            Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2014-07-02 19:57 +0000
              Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-07-02 22:39 +0000
                Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2014-07-03 05:30 +0000
                  Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2014-07-03 10:20 -0700
                    Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2014-07-04 09:23 +0000
                      Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-07-04 16:06 -0400
                        Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2014-07-05 09:12 +0000
                          Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-07-06 21:56 -0400
                            Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2014-07-07 22:53 +0000
      Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-07-02 15:10 -0400
        Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2014-07-02 19:54 +0000
      Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-07-02 22:36 +0000
        Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2014-07-03 05:22 +0000
    Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-07-02 22:34 +0000

Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5  Next page →

#61985

On 14-07-05 11:07, Jolly Roger wrote:

>> Thanks. I was under the impression that it was only 9 that overlapped
>> OS-X (since it introduced cocoa which would also be on OS-X)
> 
> Were you not around back then, or something?

I was stuck at 8.6 for a very long time. Gotten an  imac just before
they were eligible for OS-9 upgrade.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62014

JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> On 14-07-05 02:37, David Empson wrote:
> 
> > Therefore the entire lifetime of Mac OS 8 was in the shadow of the
> > upcoming release of OS X, and Mac OS 9 overlapped the release of early
> > versions.
> 
> Thanks. I was under the impression that it was only 9 that overlapped
> OS-X (since it introduced cocoa which would also be on OS-X)

Cocoa was never on Mac OS 9. It was only released for Mac OS X.

Carbon was the framework which allowed applications to run natively on
both Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X. Looking at the archives I have immediately
to hand, Carbon was almost certainly announced at WWDC in 1999 (between
Mac OS 8.6 and 9.0), and it appears that it was first available in early
2000 (while 9.0.x was current). Early versions of CarbonLib were able to
run as far back as Mac OS 8.1.

Apple's original strategy was to push developers to use "Yellow Box"
(which was later renamed "Cocoa"), but there was enough resistance that
Apple had to add Carbon as a more gentle transition for developers from
the Mac OS APIs to Mac OS X.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62020

On 14-07-05 22:59, David Empson wrote:

> Carbon was the framework which allowed applications to run natively on
> both Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X. 

Thanks. Confused Carbon and Cocoa.

> Apple's original strategy was to push developers to use "Yellow Box"
> (which was later renamed "Cocoa"), but there was enough resistance that
> Apple had to add Carbon as a more gentle transition for developers from
> the Mac OS APIs to Mac OS X.

I was under the impression that Carbon was added to Mac OS-9 to get
developpers to start to build apps that would port to OS-X more easily.
Your statement seems to be the opposite, Carbon added to OS-X to ease
porting.


Since OS-X was begun while 8.6 was current, why would Apple have
bothered developping a new API "Carbon" for Mac OS-9 if Carbon was not
originally intended to be used in OS-X ?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62021

On 2014-07-06 06:42:48 +0000, JF Mezei said:

> On 14-07-05 22:59, David Empson wrote:
> 
>> Carbon was the framework which allowed applications to run natively on
>> both Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X.
> 
> Thanks. Confused Carbon and Cocoa.
> 
>> Apple's original strategy was to push developers to use "Yellow Box"
>> (which was later renamed "Cocoa"), but there was enough resistance that
>> Apple had to add Carbon as a more gentle transition for developers from
>> the Mac OS APIs to Mac OS X.
> 
> I was under the impression that Carbon was added to Mac OS-9 to get
> developpers to start to build apps that would port to OS-X more easily.
> Your statement seems to be the opposite, Carbon added to OS-X to ease
> porting.
> 
> 
> Since OS-X was begun while 8.6 was current, why would Apple have
> bothered developping a new API "Carbon" for Mac OS-9 if Carbon was not
> originally intended to be used in OS-X ?

The thing about Carbon is that it wasn't an entirely new API; it was a 
re-write of the existing Mac OS Toolbox API with changes made to 
accomodate what was coming in Mac OS X. It was written because 
developers were showing a strong reluctance to doing completely new 
development to get their software to run in Mac OS X.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62023

JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> On 14-07-05 22:59, David Empson wrote:
> 
> > Carbon was the framework which allowed applications to run natively on
> > both Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X. 
> 
> Thanks. Confused Carbon and Cocoa.
> 
> > Apple's original strategy was to push developers to use "Yellow Box"
> > (which was later renamed "Cocoa"), but there was enough resistance that
> > Apple had to add Carbon as a more gentle transition for developers from
> > the Mac OS APIs to Mac OS X.
> 
> I was under the impression that Carbon was added to Mac OS-9 to get
> developpers to start to build apps that would port to OS-X more easily.
> Your statement seems to be the opposite, Carbon added to OS-X to ease
> porting.

Carbon was basically two developments in parallel, implementing the same
(or nearly the same) set of APIs on Mac OS 8.1-9.x and on Mac OS X. It
was based on existing Mac OS APIs, but with changes to better handle a
multitasking environment and to fit better with how Mac OS X worked.

On the Mac OS 8/9 side, Carbon replaced many of the existing Mac OS
toolbox APIs, usually as a layer on top of the existing toolbox.

On the Mac OS X side, Apple had to implement a whole new set of APIs for
Carbon, which worked the same as Carbon on Mac OS 8/9, using the
underlying operating system and lower level frameworks (some of which
probably required redevelopment to allow for both Cocoa and Carbon).
Most of this did not exist previously for Mac OS X, so the Mac OS X
Carbon framework was a much larger development effort (for Apple) than
the Mac OS 8/9 implementation of CarbonLib.

For example, the classic Mac OS API relied heavily on system-wide global
variables such as the current drawing context for QuickDraw (the low
level drawing package on which the Mac OS graphical user interface
toolboxes were based). This allowed the QuickDraw APIs to not have
parameters to indicate the drawing context - the toolbox could just
refer to the global variable. If multiple applications were running
(e.g. under MultiFinder), the system had to switch these global
variables whenever switching between applications.

Carbon changed the QuickDraw APIs by eliminating the global variables
and instead passing the drawing context as a parameter. This simplified
task switching by the OS, but it required some relatively minor source
code changes in applications which wanted to use Carbon.

On Mac OS X, none of QuickDraw existed until Apple implemented it as
part of Carbon.

This wasn't a simple case of porting existing parts of Mac OS 8/9 to Mac
OS X, because a lot of the classic Mac toolbox was written in assembly
language (and some parts were still 68K assembly language well into the
PowerPC era). Quite a lot of the development Apple did in Mac OS
8/9/Carbon was rewriting existing toolboxes from assembly language to C,
which allowed them to be ported more easily to Mac OS X, where they
formed parts of Carbon on Mac OS X.

> Since OS-X was begun while 8.6 was current

Work on Mac OS X (originally called Rhapsody) started around the time
Mac OS 7.6 was released (shortly after the NeXT acquisition).

Carbon was announced while Mac OS 8.6 was current (two and a half years
later), and wasn't available until after Mac OS 9.0 was released.

> why would Apple have bothered developping a new API "Carbon" for Mac OS-9
> if Carbon was not originally intended to be used in OS-X ?

Carbon allowed applications to run on both Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X using a
common API, thereby making it easier to port an application from Mac OS
9 to Mac OS X. Typically the source code was identical (or nearly
identical), but the application may have needed to be built differently
for Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X.

Once a developer had "Carbonized" their application, it still needed to
run on Mac OS 9 until the users were ready to switch to Mac OS X. That
didn't really happen in significant numbers until Apple started making
Mac OS X the default after 10.2 was released (August 2002).

Carbon applications running on Mac OS 8/9 required CarbonLib, which
provided the new variants of the classic Mac OS APIs the application was
using.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#61969

In article <53b7964e$0$10370$c3e8da3$9b4ff22a@news.astraweb.com>, JF
Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> Is there a timeline for when Jobs returned part time to Apple, when
> Apple purchased Next and Apple announced it would ditch Mac OS and go
> with OS-X ?

Yup.  Dec 10, 1996, Apple bought NeXT, brought Jobs and NeXTStep into
the company.  On July 9, 1997, Apple fired Amelio and made Jobs Interim
CEO.  On January 6, 2000 Jobs announced that he was the permanent CEO,
dropping "Interim" from his title.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#61683

In article <010720142006262552%michelle@michelle.org>, Michelle Steiner wrote:

> http://www.macnn.com/articles/14/07/01/app.will.support.third.party.exte
> nsions/

> In the wake of Aperture's demise, the upcoming Photos app for OS X
> Yosemite will incorporate professional-level features, an Apple
> representative claims. These include functions related to editing,
> effects, and image search, and support for third-party extensions.
> The spokesperson didn't go into any further details however.

I won't hold my breath. Do anyone imagine that Photos will have lens 
corrections of professional-grade noise reduction? Settings for Chromatic 
abberations? Not likely. It will be a consumer-grade app that as far as we 
know will be even simpler than iPhoto and probably a limited plugin 
architecture as well.

> Aperture was Apple's attempt at professional workflow software for
> photographers. The last major update was released in 2010 however,
> and Adobe Lightroom eventually became the industry standard.

> What is known about Photos can be gleaned from the app's only
> official screenshot so far. Settings panels will let people adjust
> lighting elements like levels, exposure, contrast, highlights, and
> shadows, and color elements such as white balance and saturation.
> Apple has also promised that people will be able to import Aperture
> libraries.

Yeah, professional-level allright :)



-- 
Sandman[.net]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#61699

Sandman <mr@sandman.net> wrote:

> I won't hold my breath. Do anyone imagine that Photos will have lens 
> corrections of professional-grade noise reduction? Settings for Chromatic 
> abberations? Not likely. It will be a consumer-grade app that as far as we 
> know will be even simpler than iPhoto and probably a limited plugin 
> architecture as well.

I think what happened to Final Cut Pro is predictive here.

If I was an Aperture user, the first thing I'd try is running it
on the new operating system.  Who knows, you might get lucky.

Billy Y..
-- 
        sub     #'9+1   ,r0             ; convert ascii byte
	add     #9.+1   ,r0             ; to an integer
	bcc     20$                     ; not a number

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#61701

On 2014-07-02 15:55:20 +0000, billy@MIX.COM said:

> Sandman <mr@sandman.net> wrote:
> 
>> I won't hold my breath. Do anyone imagine that Photos will have lens
>> corrections of professional-grade noise reduction? Settings for Chromatic
>> abberations? Not likely. It will be a consumer-grade app that as far as we
>> know will be even simpler than iPhoto and probably a limited plugin
>> architecture as well.
> 
> I think what happened to Final Cut Pro is predictive here.
> 
> If I was an Aperture user, the first thing I'd try is running it
> on the new operating system.  Who knows, you might get lucky.
> 
> Billy Y..

Apple has already announced Aperture will be updated for compatibility 
with Yosemite...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#61705

In article <lp1a18$b35$1@reader2.panix.com>, billy@MIX.COM wrote:

> > Sandman:
> > I won't hold my breath. Do anyone imagine that Photos will have
> > lens corrections of professional-grade noise reduction? Settings
> > for Chromatic abberations? Not likely. It will be a consumer-grade
> > app that as far as we know will be even simpler than iPhoto and
> > probably a limited plugin architecture as well.
> 
> I think what happened to Final Cut Pro is predictive here.

I disagree. Final Cut Pro was updated to a new UI practice, and features 
were left out but still aimed to be the same application. This is also what 
happened to Logic and iMovie (twice for iMovie).

If "Photos" for OSX wasn't called "Photos" and just a new revamped version 
of iPhoto then I wouldn't be as dismayed.

> If I was an Aperture user, the first thing I'd try is running it on
> the new operating system.  Who knows, you might get lucky.

Yes, but even so - "Photos" is replacing iPhoto, not Aperture, as far as we 
know. The screenshots and the sneak preview confirms that much. There is 
nothing from Apple that suggest that anything in Photos will be 
professional-level photo editing/management.

But, we'll see. I'll happily eat my words :)


-- 
Sandman[.net]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#61710

In article <slrnlr8iqu.8vj.mr@irc.sandman.net>, Sandman
<mr@sandman.net> wrote:

> If "Photos" for OSX wasn't called "Photos" and just a new revamped version 
> of iPhoto then I wouldn't be as dismayed.

so it's only about the name??

> > If I was an Aperture user, the first thing I'd try is running it on
> > the new operating system.  Who knows, you might get lucky.
> 
> Yes, but even so - "Photos" is replacing iPhoto, not Aperture, as far as we 
> know.

no. it's replacing *both* and is a merge of both. 

it will likely be more than iphoto (which is easy) and not quite what
aperture is currently (but can grow into it).

> The screenshots and the sneak preview confirms that much. There is 
> nothing from Apple that suggest that anything in Photos will be 
> professional-level photo editing/management.

the screen shots don't confirm what you've been spouting. they totally
contradict it.

apple confirms it:
<http://arstechnica.com/apple/2014/06/apple-to-cease-development-support-
of-pro-photo-app-aperture/>

  Update: When asked about what Aperture-like features users can expect
  from the new Photos app, an Apple representative mentioned plans for
  professional-grade features such as image search, editing, effects,
  and most notably, third-party extensibility.


> But, we'll see. I'll happily eat my words :)

start planning on that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#61715

In article <020720141511251415%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam wrote:

> > Sandman:
> > If "Photos" for OSX wasn't called "Photos" and just a new revamped
> > version of iPhoto then I wouldn't be as dismayed.
> 
> so it's only about the name??

Of course not.

> > > billy@MIX.COM:
> > > If I was an Aperture user, the first thing I'd try is running it
> > > on the new operating system.  Who knows, you might get lucky.
> > 
> > Sandman:
> > Yes, but even so - "Photos" is replacing iPhoto, not Aperture, as
> > far as we know.
> 
> no. it's replacing *both* and is a merge of both.

According to what facts?

> it will likely be more than iphoto (which is easy) and not quite
> what aperture is currently (but can grow into it).

According to what we know about it, it is *less* than iPhoto and not even a 
shadow of Aperture.

> > Sandman:
> > The screenshots and the sneak preview confirms that much. There is
> > nothing from Apple that suggest that anything in Photos will be
> > professional-level photo editing/management.
> 
> the screen shots don't confirm what you've been spouting. they
> totally contradict it.

> apple confirms it:
> <http://arstechnica.com/apple/2014/06/apple-to-cease-development-support-
> of-pro-photo-app-aperture/>

> Update: When asked about what Aperture-like features users can
> expect from the new Photos app, an Apple representative mentioned
> plans for professional-grade features such as image search, editing,
> effects, and most notably, third-party extensibility.

All of which we already knew, and nothing about actual professional-level 
functionality. You know, like Levels, Noise reduction, lens profiles, 
project management, advanced export and a thousand more professional level 
features.

> > Sandman:
> > But, we'll see. I'll happily eat my words :)
> 
> start planning on that.

Not bloodly likely.


-- 
Sandman[.net]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#61722

In article <slrnlr8pa0.96g.mr@irc.sandman.net>, Sandman
<mr@sandman.net> wrote:

> > > Yes, but even so - "Photos" is replacing iPhoto, not Aperture, as
> > > far as we know.
> > 
> > no. it's replacing *both* and is a merge of both.
> 
> According to what facts?

According to what was said about it when it was introduced at the WWDC.

> > it will likely be more than iphoto (which is easy) and not quite
> > what aperture is currently (but can grow into it).
> 
> According to what we know about it, it is *less* than iPhoto and not
> even a shadow of Aperture.

According to what you think you know about it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#61727

In article <020720141737562181%michelle@michelle.org>, Michelle Steiner wrote:

> In article <slrnlr8pa0.96g.mr@irc.sandman.net>, Sandman

> > > > Sandman:
> > > > Yes, but even so - "Photos" is replacing iPhoto, not Aperture,
> > > > as far as we know.
> > > 
> > > nospam:
> > > no. it's replacing *both* and is a merge of both.
> > 
> > Sandman:
> > According to what facts?
> 
> According to what was said about it when it was introduced at the
> WWDC.

Actually, neither iPhoto or Aperture was mentioned in the keynote. Do you 
mean somewhere else at WWDC?

> > > nospam:
> > > it will likely be more than iphoto (which is easy) and not quite
> > > what aperture is currently (but can grow into it).
> > 
> > Sandman:
> > According to what we know about it, it is *less* than iPhoto and
> > not even a shadow of Aperture.
> 
> According to what you think you know about it.

Based on what we've been shown. I've shown ample of evidence for my 
conclusions.


-- 
Sandman[.net]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#61769

In article <slrnlr9r0e.a7a.mr@irc.sandman.net>, Sandman
<mr@sandman.net> wrote:

> > > > > Yes, but even so - "Photos" is replacing iPhoto, not Aperture,
> > > > > as far as we know.
> > > > 
> > > > nospam:
> > > > no. it's replacing *both* and is a merge of both.
> > > 
> > > Sandman:
> > > According to what facts?
> > 
> > According to what was said about it when it was introduced at the
> > WWDC.
> 
> Actually, neither iPhoto or Aperture was mentioned in the keynote. Do you 
> mean somewhere else at WWDC?

actually iphoto was mentioned.

apple said that photos would be replacing iphoto and at that point, it
became obvious aperture had no future since photos was *much* more than
iphoto. it didn't make sense to continue both photos and aperture.

not surprisingly, a couple of weeks later, aperture's eol was confirmed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#61953

In article <040720141606214654%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam wrote:

> In article <slrnlr9r0e.a7a.mr@irc.sandman.net>, Sandman

> > > > > > Sandman:
> > > > > > Yes, but even so - "Photos" is replacing iPhoto, not
> > > > > > Aperture, as far as we know.
> > > > > 
> > > > > nospam:
> > > > > no. it's replacing *both* and is a merge of both.
> > > > 
> > > > Sandman:
> > > > According to what facts?
> > > 
> > > Michelle Steiner:
> > > According to what was said about it when it was introduced at
> > > the WWDC.
> > 
> > Sandman:
> > Actually, neither iPhoto or Aperture was mentioned in the keynote.
> > Do you mean somewhere else at WWDC?
> 
> actually iphoto was mentioned.

> apple said that photos would be replacing iphoto and at that point,

Timecode in the keynote for this mention?


-- 
Sandman[.net]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#61720

Okay, so one time? In band camp? billy@MIX.COM <billy@MIX.COM> was all, like: 
 --> 	 Wed, 2 Jul 2014 15:55:20 +0000 (UTC) <lp1a18$b35$1@reader2.panix.com>
> Sandman <mr@sandman.net> wrote:

>> I won't hold my breath. Do anyone imagine that Photos will have lens 
>> corrections of professional-grade noise reduction? Settings for Chromatic 
>> abberations? Not likely. It will be a consumer-grade app that as far as we 
>> know will be even simpler than iPhoto and probably a limited plugin 
>> architecture as well.

> I think what happened to Final Cut Pro is predictive here.

> If I was an Aperture user, the first thing I'd try is running it
> on the new operating system.  Who knows, you might get lucky.

We already know it will be updated for 10.10.


-- 
I love as only I can, with all my heart

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#61700

On 2014-07-02 09:01:18 +0000, Sandman said:

> In article <010720142006262552%michelle@michelle.org>, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> 
>> http://www.macnn.com/articles/14/07/01/app.will.support.third.party.exte
>> nsions/
> 
>> In the wake of Aperture's demise, the upcoming Photos app for OS X
>> Yosemite will incorporate professional-level features, an Apple
>> representative claims. These include functions related to editing,
>> effects, and image search, and support for third-party extensions.
>> The spokesperson didn't go into any further details however.
> 
> I won't hold my breath. Do anyone imagine that Photos will have lens
> corrections of professional-grade noise reduction? Settings for Chromatic
> abberations? Not likely. It will be a consumer-grade app that as far as we
> know will be even simpler than iPhoto and probably a limited plugin
> architecture as well.

And if it doesn't have those things, don't you think that that might be 
an opportunity for a third party to write an extension or two?

> 
>> Aperture was Apple's attempt at professional workflow software for
>> photographers. The last major update was released in 2010 however,
>> and Adobe Lightroom eventually became the industry standard.
> 
>> What is known about Photos can be gleaned from the app's only
>> official screenshot so far. Settings panels will let people adjust
>> lighting elements like levels, exposure, contrast, highlights, and
>> shadows, and color elements such as white balance and saturation.
>> Apple has also promised that people will be able to import Aperture
>> libraries.
> 
> Yeah, professional-level allright :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#61702

Sandman:
> > I won't hold my breath. Do anyone imagine that Photos will have lens
> > corrections of professional-grade noise reduction? Settings for Chromatic
> > abberations? Not likely. It will be a consumer-grade app that as far as we
> > know will be even simpler than iPhoto and probably a limited plugin
> > architecture as well.

Alan Baker:
> And if it doesn't have those things, don't you think that that might be 
> an opportunity for a third party to write an extension or two?

An opportunity, yes, but I doubt if pro-level developers will jump in.
Already, at least one high-end plug-in that works in Aperture and
Lightroom are labeled "Some functions not available in Aperture." Not
because Aperture couldn't handle them, but because it wasn't worth the
expense of writing the code for such a limited market. Wouldn't you
expect that all development of Aperture plug-ins has ceased as of the
past week?

Photos is not going to boost Apple's share against Adobe; the opposite
may happen. Given that in 2009 (and it's gotten worse) only 6% of pros
were using Aperture, there's just no money in Apple-branded photo
software. And who will trust Apple to 1) get Photos right and 2) not
abandon the app after a couple of years due to lack of interest. That's
the thing with me. For now, I trust Apple hardware, but I'm steering
clear of dependency on its software (except for iTunes, the
functionality of which will stay around in some form, under some name,
to support iThingies). At best, Photos will keep iPhoto users happy.

The good news is that small developers--hobbyists essentially--are also
capable of writing good code, and some of them may jump in with Photos
add-ons. The bad news again is that small developers tend to come and
go pretty quickly.

-- 
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#61703

On 2014-07-02 16:44:44 +0000, Davoud said:

> Sandman:
>>> I won't hold my breath. Do anyone imagine that Photos will have lens
>>> corrections of professional-grade noise reduction? Settings for Chromatic
>>> abberations? Not likely. It will be a consumer-grade app that as far as we
>>> know will be even simpler than iPhoto and probably a limited plugin
>>> architecture as well.
> 
> Alan Baker:
>> And if it doesn't have those things, don't you think that that might be
>> an opportunity for a third party to write an extension or two?
> 
> An opportunity, yes, but I doubt if pro-level developers will jump in.
> Already, at least one high-end plug-in that works in Aperture and
> Lightroom are labeled "Some functions not available in Aperture." Not
> because Aperture couldn't handle them, but because it wasn't worth the
> expense of writing the code for such a limited market. Wouldn't you
> expect that all development of Aperture plug-ins has ceased as of the
> past week?

But if Apple produces one app to serve the consumer and pro (or 
pro-sumer) markets, then the potential customer base grows considerably.

And no, actually. Those developers know that Aperture will still be 
compatible with Yosemite.

> 
> Photos is not going to boost Apple's share against Adobe; the opposite
> may happen. Given that in 2009 (and it's gotten worse) only 6% of pros
> were using Aperture, there's just no money in Apple-branded photo
> software. And who will trust Apple to 1) get Photos right and 2) not
> abandon the app after a couple of years due to lack of interest. That's
> the thing with me. For now, I trust Apple hardware, but I'm steering
> clear of dependency on its software (except for iTunes, the
> functionality of which will stay around in some form, under some name,
> to support iThingies). At best, Photos will keep iPhoto users happy.

But Photos WILL boost the overall number of potential customers for 
plug-ins/extensions...

...because it will be on every Mac.

> 
> The good news is that small developers--hobbyists essentially--are also
> capable of writing good code, and some of them may jump in with Photos
> add-ons. The bad news again is that small developers tend to come and
> go pretty quickly.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web