Slashdot Mirror
Apple Kills Aperture, Says New Photos App Will Replace It
mpicpp (3454017) writes Apple told news website The Loop that it has decided to abandon Aperture, its professional photo-editing software application. "With the introduction of the new Photos app and iCloud Photo Library, enabling you to safely store all of your photos in iCloud and access them from anywhere, there will be no new development of Aperture," Apple said in a statement to The Loop. "When Photos for OS X ships next year, users will be able to migrate their existing Aperture libraries to Photos for OS." The new Photos app, which will debut with OS X Yosemite when it launches this fall, will also replace iPhoto. It promises to be more intuitive and user friendly, but as such, likely not as full featured as what Aperture currently offers.
Aperture won't run in Yosemite because Apple wants you to use the new app.
Not according to this which claims "an Apple spokesman told them" (distinct lack of "horse's mouth" links, unfortunately) that it would be updated to run on Yosemite.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
RAW support is independent from Aperture and is installed via mini-updates to the system.
No change whatsoever. Aperture uses won't have to switch.
"and are afraid it will disappear forever, well, again, relax, that is impossible"
You are wrong. You see you cant buy a disc with aperture on it, only via the app store... and if they remove it from the app store you cant reinstall it when your hard drive crashes. Therefore they CAN make it disappear. All they have to do is wait a short few years for that hard drive to fail.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Rule of thumb: if you are using Apple products, be sure to budget extra for version changes and compatibility issues, because that is the Apple way. Also, it cn be dangerous to skip versions (for example, the latest version of Pages won't open documents from Pages '08. If you don't buy the intermediate version, you're screwed).
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
It all depends on what you are shooting. I'm paid to cover an event (concert, wedding, conference, etc), and don't second chances -- let alone much time to setup the shot -- so I take two or three exposures per "shot". It's easier to discard later than it is to miss the shot. When I shoot a concert, I'm shooting the entire 3 or 4 hours. A wedding, I'm shooting for usually a 12 hour period, at least. A conference may be over 4 days, and a runner's race might be over the course of a full day. Each event usually produces just as many shots.
If I only was shooting a potted plant I might only need three exposures because I can carefully plan the shot, adjust the lighting, and edit the shot thoughtfully for an extended period of time. A senior photo shoot might only need 20 exposures. But when you are working events with moving lights, moving people, and instantly changing emotions, the difference between 1/3 of second between exposures can make the photo while the next one is too dark, missing the person, or doesn't show what I want it to show.
I don't deal with film anymore. Space is cheap. Exposures only cost power. In this day and age there is no reason to not take too many photos and throw out or ignore the ones you don't want.