I'll soon be migrating 30GB or so of photos in Aperture to Photos, and I am
quite keen not to have any unpleasant surprises.

I assume that originals, RAW or otherwise, will be migrated un-touched.

What about the edits that have been applied to versions? I don't think Photos
has the same controls and filters, so will some be applied in Photos, or none?

(Even if they do exist in Photos, there's no guarantee they'll work the same
way, using the same alghorithms.)

Any other potential pitfalls to be aware of?

Daniele

D.M. Procida <daniele-at-vurt-dot-org@invalid.com> wrote:
> I'll soon be migrating 30GB or so of photos in Aperture to Photos, and I am
> quite keen not to have any unpleasant surprises.
>
> I assume that originals, RAW or otherwise, will be migrated un-touched.
>
> What about the edits that have been applied to versions? I don't think Photos
> has the same controls and filters, so will some be applied in Photos, or none?
>
> (Even if they do exist in Photos, there's no guarantee they'll work the same
> way, using the same alghorithms.)
>
> Any other potential pitfalls to be aware of?

I did do this some while ago, and I think it did work ok-ish, but can’t
really remember all of the process now.

The parts I do remember are:

* It maintains the folder/album layout you have, so that still shows up in
Photos.
* All originals are transferred fine. In that respect Photos works the same
way, and always leaves originals untouched, regardless of file type. I.e.
full non-destructive editing.
* I believe all your current edits are maintained, but IIRC that’s only
because it simply uses a high-res ‘Preview’ image for viewing (as is normal
for a Raw non-destructive workflow). If you want to re-edit in Photos, then
you probably have to do the ‘revert to original’ and start over process.

Whenever I tried to migrate over to Photos, I did find it was less
reliable, and suffered with library issues a lot. However, that was more
likely me using it with various external HDDs in proprietary enclosures.
Although I do have an external HDD for local storage now, it’s been fine
working alongside iCloud.

One thing that was fairly common though was/is that it’s definitely more
reliable using a fully managed library, rather than attempt to use it in
‘referenced’ mode. If that’s important to you, then you may need to look
elsewhere.

Now, I spent some time using Lightroom, but switched back to Photos when I
decided I wanted to go with a more iPad centric setup. Lightroom on mobile
is pretty awful (IMHO), but since I made that switch, and started using
Photos in conjunction with fully iCloud based storage, it’s been pretty
much a revelation. This has been both stable and very flexible.

So to the positives here:
* Photos isn’t as bad as you’d think by itself. I’m still using it on
Catalina on my iMac, and it’s doing just fine for what I need there. It’s
editing tools are ok, not as extensive as others, but you still get a lot
of stuff (such as levels, curves, noise reduction, etc.).
* it’s extendable - more so than Aperture - so you can add so much more
functionality for little extra cost. Look at adding Affinity Photo,
Pixelmator, Raw Power etc. and there’s little you want for. Most of that
lot still work within the non-destructive workflow.
* it all works across multiple devices. Even though my iMac is still on
Catalina, but my iPad Pro is on the latest OS, all edits still transfer
across, albeit some are simplified, but it still works. Of course, that’s
if it’s important to you - I didn’t think it was until I started using it
this way.
* cost is reasonable. Compared to other alternatives, such as Lightroom,
Capture One, DXO, etc, you can pay from nothing extra, to a few pounds for
some of the extensions (as one of payments with no subscriptions, although
granted you’d pay subscription if you needed cloud storage).

When I moved from Lightroom about 18 months ago, and switched to the iPad +
Photos + extensions, I ended up migrating by starting afresh. I imported my
entire collection from my archive, and rebuilt the layout from scratch.
It’s been a lot of work, but it’s also been fun re-editing. My images using
different tools. I’m using a combination of Pixelmator Photo and Raw Power,
which offers a lot of editing power and flexibility and choice of editing
tools (something you can’t do with Lightroom on a mobile device). If I need
more, I can also use Affinity, although that’s not as slick on the iPad,
it’s a very powerful option when needed.

To put into context, I have a library that’s around 600GB, with about
60,000 images, so yours should be pretty simple to work with for whatever
migration method you choose.

Hope some of that helps.

--
Andy H

On 29 Jan 2022 at 08:34:57 GMT, "Andy Hewitt" <thewildrover@icloud.com> wrote:

> D.M. Procida <daniele-at-vurt-dot-org@invalid.com> wrote:
>> I'll soon be migrating 30GB or so of photos in Aperture to Photos, and I am
>> quite keen not to have any unpleasant surprises.
>>
>> I assume that originals, RAW or otherwise, will be migrated un-touched.
>>
>> What about the edits that have been applied to versions? I don't think Photos
>> has the same controls and filters, so will some be applied in Photos, or none?
>>
>> (Even if they do exist in Photos, there's no guarantee they'll work the same
>> way, using the same alghorithms.)
>>
>> Any other potential pitfalls to be aware of?
>
> I did do this some while ago, and I think it did work ok-ish, but can’t
> really remember all of the process now.
>
> The parts I do remember are:
>
> * It maintains the folder/album layout you have, so that still shows up in
> Photos.
> * All originals are transferred fine. In that respect Photos works the same
> way, and always leaves originals untouched, regardless of file type. I.e.
> full non-destructive editing.

Thanks, this is reassuring to know.

> * I believe all your current edits are maintained, but IIRC that’s only
> because it simply uses a high-res ‘Preview’ image for viewing (as is normal
> for a Raw non-destructive workflow). If you want to re-edit in Photos, then
> you probably have to do the ‘revert to original’ and start over process.

I guess that's liveable-with.

In fact I hope that newer algorithms in Photos might prove to be better than
some of those in Aperture. Aperture's magic improvement button does a
remarkable job in most cases, but it's generally not as good with photos
scanned from negatives, and especially when the image is challenging. I have
multiple photographs of deserts that completely confused it.

> To put into context, I have a library that’s around 600GB, with about
> 60,000 images, so yours should be pretty simple to work with for whatever
> migration method you choose.

60'000? That's impressive. Orders of magnitude more than I have to manage.
I've spent a lot of time over the last month winnowing photographs, both
digital and in cardboard boxes; we've culled ruthlessly. it's been good to
reduce them to a more meaningful collection.

Daniele

On 29/01/2022 10:51, D.M. Procida wrote:
> On 29 Jan 2022 at 08:34:57 GMT, "Andy Hewitt" <thewildrover@icloud.com> wrote:
>
>> D.M. Procida <daniele-at-vurt-dot-org@invalid.com> wrote:
>>> I'll soon be migrating 30GB or so of photos in Aperture to Photos, and I am
>>> quite keen not to have any unpleasant surprises.
>>>
>>> I assume that originals, RAW or otherwise, will be migrated un-touched.
>>>
>>> What about the edits that have been applied to versions? I don't think Photos
>>> has the same controls and filters, so will some be applied in Photos, or none?
>>>
>>> (Even if they do exist in Photos, there's no guarantee they'll work the same
>>> way, using the same alghorithms.)
>>>
>>> Any other potential pitfalls to be aware of?
>>
>> I did do this some while ago, and I think it did work ok-ish, but can’t
>> really remember all of the process now.
>>
>> The parts I do remember are:
>>
>> * It maintains the folder/album layout you have, so that still shows up in
>> Photos.
>> * All originals are transferred fine. In that respect Photos works the same
>> way, and always leaves originals untouched, regardless of file type. I.e.
>> full non-destructive editing.
>
> Thanks, this is reassuring to know.

They do in fact share the same basic database when you migrate, so that
you don't need to double storage space, only the library is created new
for Photos.

>> * I believe all your current edits are maintained, but IIRC that’s only
>> because it simply uses a high-res ‘Preview’ image for viewing (as is normal
>> for a Raw non-destructive workflow). If you want to re-edit in Photos, then
>> you probably have to do the ‘revert to original’ and start over process.
>
> I guess that's liveable-with.
>
> In fact I hope that newer algorithms in Photos might prove to be better than
> some of those in Aperture. Aperture's magic improvement button does a
> remarkable job in most cases, but it's generally not as good with photos
> scanned from negatives, and especially when the image is challenging. I have
> multiple photographs of deserts that completely confused it.

To be honest, I don't like *any* of the AI or 'Magic' buttons much, I
haven't found any that give me the results I'm looking for.

I use three basic tools in my workflow:

Photos itself. I mostly use this on OK plain JPEG images, usually from
older compact digital cameras I used to own, or older iPhones. The Smart
button isn't too bad for most of these.

Raw Power (https://www.gentlemencoders.com/about/). The guy that headed
Aperture development. You might like to try this out as a replacement
for Aperture editing. It's the only app that has the Raw Development
module that Aperture has, so you can really fine tune things. It's also
the only third party app that properly syncs its edits within the Photos
library, and using sensible sized data files. This means you can edit
using Raw Power on any device, and they are exactly the same.

Pixelmator. I use this for older mages that are lower res, as the AI
Super Resolution actually does a good job, it's also pretty good with
it's repair tool, so handy for scanned images. I'm currently editing my
old Olympus E-1 5MP images with this, and the up-res is pretty handy for
cropping these. It does have non-destructive editing, but they don't
carry over from iPad to Desktop, it uses very large sidecar files
outside of Photos (typically 180MB each). I use the non-destrucive
editing until I've finished a batch, then I delete the sidecar files -
that does mean starting afresh if I want to change anything.

In addition, very occasionally:

Affinity Photo. On the Desktop, it integrates with Photos well, and
offers very powerful tools (up there with Photoshop). It doesn't share
across devices though, and doesn't integrate well on an iPad.

All of these work well on all image types though, just one might be
better on a particular image compared to the others. Adding all of them
doesn't break the bank either (keep an eye out for offers, they are
reasonably frequent), still cheaper than one year of subscription to
Lightroom.

>> To put into context, I have a library that’s around 600GB, with about
>> 60,000 images, so yours should be pretty simple to work with for whatever
>> migration method you choose.
>
> 60'000? That's impressive. Orders of magnitude more than I have to manage.
> I've spent a lot of time over the last month winnowing photographs, both
> digital and in cardboard boxes; we've culled ruthlessly. it's been good to
> reduce them to a more meaningful collection.

Not really, fairly average compared to some on the photo forums.

--
Andy H

Just another one as a tip. Check out Old Toads scripts:

http://www.oldtoadstutorials.net/No.P01.html

There's a handy one for importing loose folders, and I also use others
for such things as renaming Titles in batches - I also modified them to
auto apply Titles, such as all my WhatsApp collected images using a
single click of the script.

Mainly I use one to create a Title for each image using a "Date -
location - Original filename" format (so it looks like "01/01/2022 -
place I took the picture - DSCF12345.NEF"). This can be applied to
entire batch of images in one go.

--
Andy H