As part of the great post-Mojave migration (in this instance, from Aperture to
Photos) it appears that you can't move photos from one album to another.

Instead, you have to copy them, then delete them from the original album.

What kind of what is this to live?!

Daniele

On 5 Jan 2022 at 21:41:32 GMT, "D.M. Procida"
<daniele-at-vurt-dot-org@invalid.com> wrote:

> What kind of what is this to live?!

See, it has even reduced me to incoherent gibberish.

Daniele

On 5 Jan 2022 at 21:41:32 GMT, "D.M. Procida"
<daniele-at-vurt-dot-org@invalid.com> wrote:

> As part of the great post-Mojave migration (in this instance, from Aperture to
> Photos) it appears that you can't move photos from one album to another.
>
> Instead, you have to copy them, then delete them from the original album.
>
> What kind of what is this to live?!
>
> Daniele

I have noticed something odd about the 'dragging' of files from one folder to
another on this Mac Book Pro 2021. Seems to be something to do with the haptic
feedback and the weight of initial highlighting of the files to drag.

I haven't stopped to check it further yet...
--
Felix

On 05/01/2022 21:41, D.M. Procida wrote:
> As part of the great post-Mojave migration (in this instance, from Aperture to
> Photos) it appears that you can't move photos from one album to another.
>
> Instead, you have to copy them, then delete them from the original album.

That's because they're not really folders and albums, not like they were
in Aperture.

In Photos there are no 'real' folders, everything is is kind of
'virtual'. The image files are only stored in the main library.

Any images you put into an album are simply a reference to the original,
so you can put an image into as many albums as you like, and it doesn't
use any more space, it's not creating any copies at all. So when you add
a photo to another album, there's nothing to 'move', you're just adding
another referenced location.

Probably more like the old Projects and Albums in Aperture.

--
Andy H

Andy Hewitt wrote:
> On 05/01/2022 21:41, D.M. Procida wrote:
>> As part of the great post-Mojave migration (in this instance, from
>> Aperture to
>> Photos) it appears that you can't move photos from one album to another.
>>
>> Instead, you have to copy them, then delete them from the original album.
>
> That's because they're not really folders and albums, not like they were
> in Aperture.
>
> In Photos there are no 'real' folders, everything is is kind of
> 'virtual'. The image files are only stored in the main library.
>
> Any images you put into an album are simply a reference to the original,
> so you can put an image into as many albums as you like, and it doesn't
> use any more space, it's not creating any copies at all. So when you add
> a photo to another album, there's nothing to 'move', you're just adding
> another referenced location.
>
> Probably more like the old Projects and Albums in Aperture.

This underlying mechanism does not of itself prevent there being a
"move" function as well as a "copy" function. It is reasonable for a
user to want "move" so why isn't it provided?

--
Graham J

Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:
> Andy Hewitt wrote:
>> On 05/01/2022 21:41, D.M. Procida wrote:
>>> As part of the great post-Mojave migration (in this instance, from
>>> Aperture to
>>> Photos) it appears that you can't move photos from one album to another.
>>>
>>> Instead, you have to copy them, then delete them from the original album.
>>
>> That's because they're not really folders and albums, not like they were
>> in Aperture.
>>
>> In Photos there are no 'real' folders, everything is is kind of
>> 'virtual'. The image files are only stored in the main library.
>>
>> Any images you put into an album are simply a reference to the original,
>> so you can put an image into as many albums as you like, and it doesn't
>> use any more space, it's not creating any copies at all. So when you add
>> a photo to another album, there's nothing to 'move', you're just adding
>> another referenced location.
>>
>> Probably more like the old Projects and Albums in Aperture.
>
>
> This underlying mechanism does not of itself prevent there being a
> "move" function as well as a "copy" function. It is reasonable for a
> user to want "move" so why isn't it provided?

There is nothing to ‘copy’ or ‘move’. There is no ‘copy’ function in the
first place.

All that’s happening in the albums is you’re creating collection of images
according to your needs. The images are all stored in ‘All Images’, then
you’re adding a ‘virtual copy’ of that image in the albums, which is just a
link to the ‘Original’ in ‘All Images’. You can choose to add images from
there, or from within another album, but the end result is the same,
they’re linked back to the master image.

You can create as many albums with the same images as you want, but they’re
not copies, if you delete an image from ‘All Images’, then it will
disappear from everywhere.

Creating a ‘Duplicate’ does a similar thing too, so you end up with a
‘virtual copy’, but still only one ‘Original’ master image. That’s pretty
handy, as even Lightroom can’t do that with it’s ‘cloud’ based version.

And, FWIW, Lightroom works in the same way with it’s folders and albums
(the mobile/cloud version, not “classic’).

--
Andy H

In article <sr6tm4$2t3$1@dont-email.me>, Andy Hewitt
<thewildrover@icloud.com> wrote:

> Creating a ŒDuplicate¹ does a similar thing too, so you end up with a
> Œvirtual copy¹, but still only one ŒOriginal¹ master image. That¹s pretty
> handy, as even Lightroom can¹t do that with it¹s Œcloud¹ based version.

lightroom has always been able to make virtual copies, one of its most
useful features.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <sr6tm4$2t3$1@dont-email.me>, Andy Hewitt
> <thewildrover@icloud.com> wrote:
>
>> Creating a ŒDuplicate¹ does a similar thing too, so you end up with a
>> Œvirtual copy¹, but still only one ŒOriginal¹ master image. That¹s pretty
>> handy, as even Lightroom can¹t do that with it¹s Œcloud¹ based version.
>
> lightroom has always been able to make virtual copies, one of its most
> useful features.

Lightroom ‘Classic’ has, but Lightroom ‘Cloud’ cannot, and never has done
(unless they added it recently).

--
Andy H

In article <sr77r3$gh2$1@dont-email.me>, Andy Hewitt
<thewildrover@icloud.com> wrote:

> >> Creating a ?Duplicate1 does a similar thing too, so you end up with a
> >> ?virtual copy1, but still only one ?Original1 master image. That1s pretty
> >> handy, as even Lightroom can1t do that with it1s ?cloud1 based version.
> >
> > lightroom has always been able to make virtual copies, one of its most
> > useful features.
>
> Lightroom ŒClassic¹ has, but Lightroom ŒCloud¹ cannot, and never has done
> (unless they added it recently).

i don't use the new version. they removed a lot to 'improve' it. kinda
like what apple does.

On 06/01/2022 17:31, nospam wrote:
> In article <sr77r3$gh2$1@dont-email.me>, Andy Hewitt
> <thewildrover@icloud.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Creating a ?Duplicate1 does a similar thing too, so you end up with a
>>>> ?virtual copy1, but still only one ?Original1 master image. That1s pretty
>>>> handy, as even Lightroom can1t do that with it1s ?cloud1 based version.
>>>
>>> lightroom has always been able to make virtual copies, one of its most
>>> useful features.
>>
>> Lightroom ŒClassic¹ has, but Lightroom ŒCloud¹ cannot, and never has done
>> (unless they added it recently).
>
> i don't use the new version. they removed a lot to 'improve' it.

No, they released a new alternative version that didn't include all the
features of the orignal, you still have the choice of which one you use
(unless you need to work with multiple mobile devices.

> kinda like what apple does.

Hmm, no, they updated iPhoto into Photos, which IMHO is no better than
iPhoto was (granted it took a while), and abandoned Aperture, which was
in a different market place - but they did at least offer the
opportunity to migrate to Photos as an option.

I did make it clear the version I was talking about. Adobe have very
much confused matters by continuously renaming their apps. To be clear,
currently Lightroom (some people still call it Lightroom CC, or
Lightroom Cloudy)is their cloud based/mobile version that is the feature
deprived version. The original Lightroom is now Lightroom Classic (often
confusingly still referred to as just Lightroom).

I have used both versions, as well as iPhoto, Photos and Aperture, and
have been using such software quite extensively for the last 20 years. I
also managed to create a reliable setup to use Lightroom Classic and
Lightroom Cloudy together (not recommended by Adobe, and not easy to get
right).

It was the missing features of 'Lightroom' that forced me to abandon my
Adobe CC plan, and switch to Photos, which for a mobile device based
setup, is IMHO and IME a slightly better workflow.

In the context here, Lightroom Cloudy and Photos are very similar in the
way they work, which is why I made the reference.

--
Andy H

In article <sr7igq$tf$1@dont-email.me>, Andy Hewitt
<thewildrover@icloud.com> wrote:

> >
> > i don't use the new version. they removed a lot to 'improve' it.
>
> No, they released a new alternative version that didn't include all the
> features of the orignal, you still have the choice of which one you use
> (unless you need to work with multiple mobile devices.

they removed features and called it an improvement. they did keep the
original around, which is nice.

> > kinda like what apple does.
>
> Hmm, no,

hmm, yes.

quicktime pro->quicktime x. there's all sorts of stuff qtx can't do
that qtpro could do, and more than decade later, apple hasn't bothered
to add it back.

final cut pro->final cut x. apple removed so much that some people
switched platforms.

<https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2011/06/more-on-apples-direction-for-fi
nal-cut-pro-x-express-and-server-going-away/>
Many users have expressed their frustration with a litany of missing
features in Final Cut Pro X. To begin with, there's no support for
output to tape, and input from tape is very limited. There's no
support for EDL or XML export, commonly used to move projects
from the editing stage to the finishing stage using other software.
There's no OMF output for mixing audio using Pro Tools. And because
FCPX uses a completely re-architected underlying media handling and
editing paradigm, it can't import projects from previous versions of
Final Cut Pro.

imovie 6->imovie '08.

david pogue describes it well.

<https://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/17/apple-takes-a-step-back-with-
imovie-08/>
IMovie ¹08, on the other hand, has been totally misnamed. It¹s
not iMovie at all. In fact, it¹s nothing like its predecessor and
contains none of the same code or design. It¹s designed for an
utterly different task, and a lot of people are screaming bloody
murder.
....
All the old audio effects are gone, too. No pitch changing, high-pass
and low-pass filters, or reverb.

The new iMovie doesn¹t accept plug-ins, either. For years, I¹ve
relied on GeeThree.com¹s iMovie plug-ins to achieve effects like
picture-in-picture, bluescreen and subtitles. That¹s all over now.

You can¹t add chapter markers for use in iDVD, which is supposed to
be integrated with iMovie. Bookmarks are gone. ³Themes² are gone.
You can no longer export only part of a movie.

All visual effects are gone‹even basic options like slow motion,
reverse motion, fast motion, and black-and-white. And you can¹t
have more than one project open at a time.

Incredibly, the new iMovie can¹t even convert older iMovie projects.
All you can import is the clips themselves. None of your transitions,
titles, credits, music, or special effects are preserved.
....
I can¹t remember any software company pulling a stunt like this
before: throwing away a fully developed, mature, popular program
and substituting a bare-bones, differently focused program under the
same name.

I¹ve used the real iMovie to edit my Times videos for three years
now. The results are perfectly convincing as professional video blog
work. But the new version is totally unusable for that purpose. It¹s
unusable, in fact, for anyone doing professional work that requires
any degree of precision.

I can¹t help thinking that Apple would have done better to call a
spade a spade, and give the new program a different name. Call
it FlyMovie, or ByeMovie, or WhyMovie.

But one thing¹s for sure: it sure isn¹t iMovie.

> they updated iPhoto into Photos, which IMHO is no better than
> iPhoto was (granted it took a while),

photos was a rewrite and is faster. that's about it.

> and abandoned Aperture, which was
> in a different market place

aperture was a market failure and discontinued.

lightroom was not only much better, but significantly faster on the
same hardware.

aperture did improve it's speed over time, but it was too little too
late. its raw conversion was also not as good as adobe camera raw in
lightroom and photoshop.

one big advantage for lightroom was seamless integration with
photoshop, in particular, non-destructive round-tripping, something
aperture could never do.

> - but they did at least offer the
> opportunity to migrate to Photos as an option.

they had to.

they tried the 'no migration' option with final cut and imovie and
people were *not* happy.

imagine the anger had they tried it again. a lot more people used
iphoto than either of those.

> I did make it clear the version I was talking about. Adobe have very
> much confused matters by continuously renaming their apps. To be clear,
> currently Lightroom (some people still call it Lightroom CC, or
> Lightroom Cloudy)is their cloud based/mobile version that is the feature
> deprived version. The original Lightroom is now Lightroom Classic (often
> confusingly still referred to as just Lightroom).

i don't use the cloud version and am very surprised adobe would remove
one of the major benefits of using an asset manager.

On 06/01/2022 22:31, nospam wrote:
> In article <sr7igq$tf$1@dont-email.me>, Andy Hewitt
> <thewildrover@icloud.com> wrote:

Not really interested in all that, to be honest.
>> they updated iPhoto into Photos, which IMHO is no better than
>> iPhoto was (granted it took a while),
>
> photos was a rewrite and is faster. that's about it.

Lightroom was also a ground up rewrite, and not just an old Lightroom
cut down.

>> and abandoned Aperture, which was
>> in a different market place
>
> aperture was a market failure and discontinued.

Aperture was perfectly good, it's a shame it failed.

> lightroom was not only much better, but significantly faster on the
> same hardware.

Rubbish.

> aperture did improve it's speed over time, but it was too little too
> late. its raw conversion was also not as good as adobe camera raw in
> lightroom and photoshop.

Depends on the Raw images you used.

> one big advantage for lightroom was seamless integration with
> photoshop, in particular, non-destructive round-tripping, something
> aperture could never do.

Well, not quite.

>> I did make it clear the version I was talking about. Adobe have very
>> much confused matters by continuously renaming their apps. To be clear,
>> currently Lightroom (some people still call it Lightroom CC, or
>> Lightroom Cloudy)is their cloud based/mobile version that is the feature
>> deprived version. The original Lightroom is now Lightroom Classic (often
>> confusingly still referred to as just Lightroom).
>
> i don't use the cloud version and am very surprised adobe would remove
> one of the major benefits of using an asset manager.

So you're arguing about software you've never used?

They'd didn't remove the feature, it was never included from the start.
It's only one of a number of features that are missing.

--
Andy H

In article <sr8kpi$dgs$1@dont-email.me>, Andy Hewitt
<thewildrover@icloud.com> wrote:

> >> they updated iPhoto into Photos, which IMHO is no better than
> >> iPhoto was (granted it took a while),
> >
> > photos was a rewrite and is faster. that's about it.
>
> Lightroom was also a ground up rewrite, and not just an old Lightroom
> cut down.

that's an interesting way to spin it.

yes, it was a rewrite, except they could have rewritten all of the
features. they did not.

it's a new app that shares the same name as the old app. unfortunately,
they confusingly renamed the old one rather than give the new one a new
name.

> >> and abandoned Aperture, which was
> >> in a different market place
> >
> > aperture was a market failure and discontinued.
>
> Aperture was perfectly good, it's a shame it failed.

mac users, who had a choice, overwhelmingly chose lightroom over
lightroom.

john nack, then at adobe, often discussed this on his blog.

he's no longer at adobe and his blog is no more. it's not even in the
wayback machine, but i did find some links referencing some of the
numbers he cited.

<http://www.andrewsgibson.com/blog/2012/10/comparing-dpp-with-lightroom-
4/>
According to 2009 statistics from research company InfoTrends,
released by Adobe Systems product manager John Nack, of the 1,045
North American professional photographers who were interviewed, 37.0%
used Lightroom and 6.3% used Aperture while 57.9% used the Photoshop
Camera Raw plug-in. Of the Mac users, 44.4% used Lightroom and 12.5%
used Aperture.
....
Here are more reasons for choosing Lightroom over Photoshop CS or
another Raw converter:
€ It¹s a lot cheaper than Photoshop CS.
€ Lightroom combined with Photoshop Elements gives you a relatively
inexpensive but powerful image editing set-up. You can use Lightroom
for 16 bit Raw processing, then Photoshop Elements for stuff you
can¹t do in Lightroom such as using layers.
€ You can extend Lightroom by buying plug-ins.
€ Lightroom integrates well with Photoshop CS, if you have both
pieces of software.

i entirely forgot about the price. aperture originally cost as much as
a mac mini, on which it could not officially run. lightroom was a
little more than half the price of aperture, forcing apple to cut
aperture's price and offer a partial refund to early buyers.

<https://www.macworld.com/article/182043/aperture15.html>
Last year¹s debut of Aperture, Apple¹s professional photographic
workflow and management software, can be summed up in one word:
bittersweet . Aperture 1.0.1 (   ) went further than any program in
addressing the start-to-finish needs of advanced and professional
photographers, but its strengths were offset by some design flaws,
bugs, and stiff hardware demands.

Apple began damage control by releasing Aperture 1.1 last April.
Apple also cut Aperture¹s price from $499 to $299 and rewarded
original Aperture users with a $200 coupon redeemable at the Apple
online store.

> > lightroom was not only much better, but significantly faster on the
> > same hardware.
>
> Rubbish.

it's not rubbish.

as noted in the above link, aperture was originally only supported on
higher end hardware. it did run on lower end hardware, but it was
intolerably slow. btdt.

i remember talking about this with adobe. they said 'we write our apps
for the hardware people actually have'.

but as i said, aperture's speed did eventually improve.

> > aperture did improve it's speed over time, but it was too little too
> > late. its raw conversion was also not as good as adobe camera raw in
> > lightroom and photoshop.
>
> Depends on the Raw images you used.

it did not.

but even if that were true (and it isn't), a raw converter that works
well on some images but not on others is flawed.

adobe camera raw was and still is widely considered to be among the
best raw converters available.

another issue was adobe was much faster in updating camera raw for new
cameras, including some apple didn't support, although those were not
common cameras.

> > one big advantage for lightroom was seamless integration with
> > photoshop, in particular, non-destructive round-tripping, something
> > aperture could never do.
>
> Well, not quite.

what's not quite about it? lightroom & photoshop both used camera raw,
which meant both apps could easily re-render the image just by sending
the edit list and raw parameters and a reference to the original raw.

aperture has its own raw conversion and could not do that. it had to
bake the image to send to photoshop, at which point the non-destructive
workflow was broken.

that's a significant drawback.

> >> I did make it clear the version I was talking about. Adobe have very
> >> much confused matters by continuously renaming their apps. To be clear,
> >> currently Lightroom (some people still call it Lightroom CC, or
> >> Lightroom Cloudy)is their cloud based/mobile version that is the feature
> >> deprived version. The original Lightroom is now Lightroom Classic (often
> >> confusingly still referred to as just Lightroom).
> >
> > i don't use the cloud version and am very surprised adobe would remove
> > one of the major benefits of using an asset manager.
>
> So you're arguing about software you've never used?

nope. i was commenting on lightroom that i do use.

> They'd didn't remove the feature, it was never included from the start.
> It's only one of a number of features that are missing.

it was removed.

> Any images you put into an album are simply a reference to the original,
> so you can put an image into as many albums as you like, and it doesn't
> use any more space, it's not creating any copies at all. So when you add
> a photo to another album, there's nothing to 'move', you're just adding
> another referenced location.
> --
> Andy H

I wonder if this is something to do with the problem I have been having with Photos, that it cant play a slideshow without accessing the internet?

I dont use iCloud. I did use iPhoto. But on my iMac, I did change it to Photos when i installed Catalina. It updated the library. I now have two libraries, both of about 38GB. (Yes, I DO know that the Photos library MIRRORS the iPhoto library without actually creating another 38GB file)

SO: I have a 38GB library all stored locally. I have been used to selecting all and the playing a slideshow as a screen saver when I am not using the computer.

But this slideshow will not play on my iMac. It gives the curious cant-access-internet error as a reason why it cant play slides stored locally!

On 07/01/2022 21:01, Amanda Ripanykhazova wrote:
>> Any images you put into an album are simply a reference to the original,
>> so you can put an image into as many albums as you like, and it doesn't
>> use any more space, it's not creating any copies at all. So when you add
>> a photo to another album, there's nothing to 'move', you're just adding
>> another referenced location.
>> --
>> Andy H
>
>
> I wonder if this is something to do with the problem I have been having with Photos, that it cant play a slideshow without accessing the internet?
>
> I dont use iCloud. I did use iPhoto. But on my iMac, I did change it to Photos when i installed Catalina. It updated the library. I now have two libraries, both of about 38GB. (Yes, I DO know that the Photos library MIRRORS the iPhoto library without actually creating another 38GB file)
>
> SO: I have a 38GB library all stored locally. I have been used to selecting all and the playing a slideshow as a screen saver when I am not using the computer.
>
> But this slideshow will not play on my iMac. It gives the curious cant-access-internet error as a reason why it cant play slides stored locally!

Sorry, can't help there, I'm using iCloud with Photos, and the
Slide-show/Screen Saver is working here. Obviously I can't easily test
that, having 600GB+ in my collection, I'm not going to be messing with
my live settings.

However, It's not likely the above quoted would be linked to your issue.

--
Andy H

On 07/01/2022 18:43, nospam wrote:
> In article <sr8kpi$dgs$1@dont-email.me>, Andy Hewitt
> <thewildrover@icloud.com> wrote:
>
>>>> they updated iPhoto into Photos, which IMHO is no better than
>>>> iPhoto was (granted it took a while),
>>>
>>> photos was a rewrite and is faster. that's about it.
>>
>> Lightroom was also a ground up rewrite, and not just an old Lightroom
>> cut down.
>
> that's an interesting way to spin it.
>
> yes, it was a rewrite, except they could have rewritten all of the
> features. they did not.

Not according to the marketing info at the time.
> it's a new app that shares the same name as the old app. unfortunately,
> they confusingly renamed the old one rather than give the new one a new
> name.

Yes, I mentioned the naming confusions.

>>>> and abandoned Aperture, which was
>>>> in a different market place
>>>
>>> aperture was a market failure and discontinued.
>>
>> Aperture was perfectly good, it's a shame it failed.
>
> mac users, who had a choice, overwhelmingly chose lightroom over
> lightroom.

Eventually yes.

>>> lightroom was not only much better, but significantly faster on the
>>> same hardware.
>>
>> Rubbish.
>
> it's not rubbish.

No, as I've used both on the same hardware, I know it is.

> as noted in the above link, aperture was originally only supported on
> higher end hardware. it did run on lower end hardware, but it was
> intolerably slow. btdt.

Well, I know I did start using Aperture on a dual processor G5 PowerMac,
but also later use them both on a MacBook and a Mac Mini, as well as my
currently owned iMac 2013. They were very similar on everything I used.

> i remember talking about this with adobe. they said 'we write our apps
> for the hardware people actually have'.
>
> but as i said, aperture's speed did eventually improve.
>
>>> aperture did improve it's speed over time, but it was too little too
>>> late. its raw conversion was also not as good as adobe camera raw in
>>> lightroom and photoshop.
>>
>> Depends on the Raw images you used.
>
> it did not.

Yup, it did.

> but even if that were true (and it isn't), a raw converter that works
> well on some images but not on others is flawed.

It is. Indeed.

> adobe camera raw was and still is widely considered to be among the
> best raw converters available.

Way wrong.

> another issue was adobe was much faster in updating camera raw for new
> cameras, including some apple didn't support, although those were not
> common cameras.

Also not true. Perception was that way, but in reality, they weren't too
different.

>>> one big advantage for lightroom was seamless integration with
>>> photoshop, in particular, non-destructive round-tripping, something
>>> aperture could never do.
>>
>> Well, not quite.
>
> what's not quite about it? lightroom & photoshop both used camera raw,
> which meant both apps could easily re-render the image just by sending
> the edit list and raw parameters and a reference to the original raw.

I never found that happened, Lightroom would send a PSD or TIFF to
Photoshop. Photoshop could not use a Raw, it had to be rendered in ACR
first, which you could do, but then ended up with a PSD or TIFF back at
Lightroom.

>>>> I did make it clear the version I was talking about. Adobe have very
>>>> much confused matters by continuously renaming their apps. To be clear,
>>>> currently Lightroom (some people still call it Lightroom CC, or
>>>> Lightroom Cloudy)is their cloud based/mobile version that is the feature
>>>> deprived version. The original Lightroom is now Lightroom Classic (often
>>>> confusingly still referred to as just Lightroom).
>>>
>>> i don't use the cloud version and am very surprised adobe would remove
>>> one of the major benefits of using an asset manager.
>>
>> So you're arguing about software you've never used?
>
> nope. i was commenting on lightroom that i do use.

All was which is completely irrelevant to the OP.

>> They'd didn't remove the feature, it was never included from the start.
>> It's only one of a number of features that are missing.
>
> it was removed.

Nope, it wasn't.
--
Andy H

Andy Hewitt <thewildrover@icloud.com> wrote:
> On 07/01/2022 18:43, nospam wrote:
>> In article <sr8kpi$dgs$1@dont-email.me>, Andy Hewitt

>>>> one big advantage for lightroom was seamless integration with
>>>> photoshop, in particular, non-destructive round-tripping, something
>>>> aperture could never do.
>>>
>>> Well, not quite.
>>
>> what's not quite about it? lightroom & photoshop both used camera raw,
>> which meant both apps could easily re-render the image just by sending
>> the edit list and raw parameters and a reference to the original raw.

Actually, in an attempt to return to relevancy for the OP, this is
something that is possible in Photos now. Indeed, as I mentioned, it can
also use third party apps, which Lightroom cannot, and those apps can use
their non-destructive edits across devices.

Look matey, I don’t want to be arguing the toss over all this crap, which
as usual, you seem to love delving into and adding irrelevance to a
discussion. My comments were meant to add clarity and comparison for the
question asked.

As it happens, I have nothing against Adobe Lightroom, or indeed have any
affinity towards anything particular, I just try to choose whatever suits
my needs, and offer information that might help others, without any bias -
it‘s only comments based on my experiences using stuff.

What happened years ago doesn’t help either, it’s what’s available now that
matters, and we can’t predict the future much either. Of course there’s
historical precedence, but nobody’s perfect. Apple may have dropped
software over the years, but Adobe haven’t been great with their promises
either, nor has their system been especially more reliable than anyone
else’s.

--
Andy H

On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 2:51:55 AM UTC-7, Andy Hewitt wrote:
> Andy Hewitt <thewil...@icloud.com> wrote:
> > On 07/01/2022 18:43, nospam wrote:
> >> In article <sr8kpi$dgs$1...@dont-email.me>, Andy Hewitt
> >>>> one big advantage for lightroom was seamless integration with
> >>>> photoshop, in particular, non-destructive round-tripping, something
> >>>> aperture could never do.
> >>>
> >>> Well, not quite.
> >>
> >> what's not quite about it? lightroom & photoshop both used camera raw,
> >> which meant both apps could easily re-render the image just by sending
> >> the edit list and raw parameters and a reference to the original raw.
> Actually, in an attempt to return to relevancy for the OP, this is
> something that is possible in Photos now. Indeed, as I mentioned, it can
> also use third party apps, which Lightroom cannot, and those apps can use
> their non-destructive edits across devices.
>
> Look matey, I don’t want to be arguing the toss over all this crap, which
> as usual, you seem to love delving into and adding irrelevance to a
> discussion. My comments were meant to add clarity and comparison for the
> question asked.
>
> As it happens, I have nothing against Adobe Lightroom, or indeed have any
> affinity towards anything particular, I just try to choose whatever suits
> my needs, and offer information that might help others, without any bias -
> it‘s only comments based on my experiences using stuff.
>
> What happened years ago doesn’t help either, it’s what’s available now that
> matters, and we can’t predict the future much either. Of course there’s
> historical precedence, but nobody’s perfect. Apple may have dropped
> software over the years, but Adobe haven’t been great with their promises
> either, nor has their system been especially more reliable than anyone
> else’s.
>
>
> --
> Andy H

And given how often it is clear that Meat's signature is some skew of a
remark The Flying Spaghetti Monster made which had been a drubbing on Meat
for something he did which was stupid/fallacious/etc... its undoubtedly
a daily demonstration of Meat's lingering butthurt for having been so often
crushed.

He is as incompetent as Meat. Meat can't get anything else to work, either.
AZ cryptology is based on Linux. Of course. No no hell no. Meat never agreed
to stop flooding. He lied about his trolling of course. Gee, imagine Meat
trying to pin his trash on me, no one has ever seen that before.

--
Live on Kickstarter!
<https://findwhocallsyou.com/4234911448?CallerInfo>
https://gibiru.com/results.html?q=Dustin+Cook+%22functional+illiterate+fraud%22
http://www.phmc.state.pa.us/bah/dam/rg/di/r11_089_BirthIndexes/Birth_1909/M..PDF
Steve 'Narcissistic Bigot' Petruzzellis

On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 3:57:09 PM UTC-7, Andy Hewitt wrote:
> On 07/01/2022 18:43, nospam wrote:
> > In article <sr8kpi$dgs$1...@dont-email.me>, Andy Hewitt
> > <thewil...@icloud.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>> they updated iPhoto into Photos, which IMHO is no better than
> >>>> iPhoto was (granted it took a while),
> >>>
> >>> photos was a rewrite and is faster. that's about it.
> >>
> >> Lightroom was also a ground up rewrite, and not just an old Lightroom
> >> cut down.
> >
> > that's an interesting way to spin it.
> >
> > yes, it was a rewrite, except they could have rewritten all of the
> > features. they did not.
> Not according to the marketing info at the time.
> > it's a new app that shares the same name as the old app. unfortunately,
> > they confusingly renamed the old one rather than give the new one a new
> > name.
> Yes, I mentioned the naming confusions.
> >>>> and abandoned Aperture, which was
> >>>> in a different market place
> >>>
> >>> aperture was a market failure and discontinued.
> >>
> >> Aperture was perfectly good, it's a shame it failed.
> >
> > mac users, who had a choice, overwhelmingly chose lightroom over
> > lightroom.
> Eventually yes.
> >>> lightroom was not only much better, but significantly faster on the
> >>> same hardware.
> >>
> >> Rubbish.
> >
> > it's not rubbish.
> No, as I've used both on the same hardware, I know it is.
> > as noted in the above link, aperture was originally only supported on
> > higher end hardware. it did run on lower end hardware, but it was
> > intolerably slow. btdt.
> Well, I know I did start using Aperture on a dual processor G5 PowerMac,
> but also later use them both on a MacBook and a Mac Mini, as well as my
> currently owned iMac 2013. They were very similar on everything I used.
> > i remember talking about this with adobe. they said 'we write our apps
> > for the hardware people actually have'.
> >
> > but as i said, aperture's speed did eventually improve.
> >
> >>> aperture did improve it's speed over time, but it was too little too
> >>> late. its raw conversion was also not as good as adobe camera raw in
> >>> lightroom and photoshop.
> >>
> >> Depends on the Raw images you used.
> >
> > it did not.
> Yup, it did.
> > but even if that were true (and it isn't), a raw converter that works
> > well on some images but not on others is flawed.
> It is. Indeed.
> > adobe camera raw was and still is widely considered to be among the
> > best raw converters available.
> Way wrong.
> > another issue was adobe was much faster in updating camera raw for new
> > cameras, including some apple didn't support, although those were not
> > common cameras.
> Also not true. Perception was that way, but in reality, they weren't too
> different.
> >>> one big advantage for lightroom was seamless integration with
> >>> photoshop, in particular, non-destructive round-tripping, something
> >>> aperture could never do.
> >>
> >> Well, not quite.
> >
> > what's not quite about it? lightroom & photoshop both used camera raw,
> > which meant both apps could easily re-render the image just by sending
> > the edit list and raw parameters and a reference to the original raw.
> I never found that happened, Lightroom would send a PSD or TIFF to
> Photoshop. Photoshop could not use a Raw, it had to be rendered in ACR
> first, which you could do, but then ended up with a PSD or TIFF back at
> Lightroom.
> >>>> I did make it clear the version I was talking about. Adobe have very
> >>>> much confused matters by continuously renaming their apps. To be clear,
> >>>> currently Lightroom (some people still call it Lightroom CC, or
> >>>> Lightroom Cloudy)is their cloud based/mobile version that is the feature
> >>>> deprived version. The original Lightroom is now Lightroom Classic (often
> >>>> confusingly still referred to as just Lightroom).
> >>>
> >>> i don't use the cloud version and am very surprised adobe would remove
> >>> one of the major benefits of using an asset manager.
> >>
> >> So you're arguing about software you've never used?
> >
> > nope. i was commenting on lightroom that i do use.
> All was which is completely irrelevant to the OP.
> >> They'd didn't remove the feature, it was never included from the start.
> >> It's only one of a number of features that are missing.
> >
> > it was removed.
> Nope, it wasn't.
> --
> Andy H

The 'The Shill' Thing and Shadow both lie repeatedly and flagrantly and
continue to do so. So no motivation in showing any further civility or
control. The one thing The 'The Shill' Thing learned fully is to try to
shame Shadow into back peddling and if that fails to work, troll-splain
or quickly change the target. My view: Even if he was barely learning just
for fun, the feeling that earning understanding as being one of having
"not anything" to show for it doesn't make any sense because you will of
course have the intelligence to show for it and understanding is a dangerous
weapon. Of course, the lone thing that is important to The 'The Shill'
Thing is appearing "the winner", and if he can't have that he will post
more evidence to actively beat Shadow down... there is no way to stop him.
It was The 'The Shill' Thing who flooded Shadow's site dozens of times
and denied it. I think the point is far from just to get people to listen
to him. The point is likely to piss Shadow off for flooding outside groups
he knows I frequent.

You purchased it and read multiple reviews and your "amazing brain powers"
lead you to that opinion, so what?

--
Eight things to never feed your dog!
https://gibiru.com/results.html?q=Steve+Petruzzellis+%22NARCISSISTIC+BIGOT%22
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.sys.mac.apps/c/VMCw29DnV84>
Dustin Cook: Functional Illiterate Fraud

On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 2:56:59 AM UTC-7, Stefen Carroll - fretwizzer wrote:
> On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 2:51:55 AM UTC-7, Andy Hewitt wrote:
> > Andy Hewitt <thewil...@icloud.com> wrote:
> > > On 07/01/2022 18:43, nospam wrote:
> > >> In article <sr8kpi$dgs$1...@dont-email.me>, Andy Hewitt
> > >>>> one big advantage for lightroom was seamless integration with
> > >>>> photoshop, in particular, non-destructive round-tripping, something
> > >>>> aperture could never do.
> > >>>
> > >>> Well, not quite.
> > >>
> > >> what's not quite about it? lightroom & photoshop both used camera raw,
> > >> which meant both apps could easily re-render the image just by sending
> > >> the edit list and raw parameters and a reference to the original raw..
> > Actually, in an attempt to return to relevancy for the OP, this is
> > something that is possible in Photos now. Indeed, as I mentioned, it can
> > also use third party apps, which Lightroom cannot, and those apps can use
> > their non-destructive edits across devices.
> >
> > Look matey, I don’t want to be arguing the toss over all this crap, which
> > as usual, you seem to love delving into and adding irrelevance to a
> > discussion. My comments were meant to add clarity and comparison for the
> > question asked.
> >
> > As it happens, I have nothing against Adobe Lightroom, or indeed have any
> > affinity towards anything particular, I just try to choose whatever suits
> > my needs, and offer information that might help others, without any bias -
> > it‘s only comments based on my experiences using stuff.
> >
> > What happened years ago doesn’t help either, it’s what’s available now that
> > matters, and we can’t predict the future much either. Of course there’s
> > historical precedence, but nobody’s perfect. Apple may have dropped
> > software over the years, but Adobe haven’t been great with their promises
> > either, nor has their system been especially more reliable than anyone
> > else’s.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Andy H
> And given how often it is clear that Meat's signature is some skew of a
> remark The Flying Spaghetti Monster made which had been a drubbing on Meat
> for something he did which was stupid/fallacious/etc... its undoubtedly
> a daily demonstration of Meat's lingering butthurt for having been so often
> crushed.
>
> He is as incompetent as Meat. Meat can't get anything else to work, either.
> AZ cryptology is based on Linux. Of course. No no hell no. Meat never agreed
> to stop flooding. He lied about his trolling of course. Gee, imagine Meat
> trying to pin his trash on me, no one has ever seen that before.
>
> --
> Live on Kickstarter!
> <https://findwhocallsyou.com/4234911448?CallerInfo>
> https://gibiru.com/results.html?q=Dustin+Cook+%22functional+illiterate+fraud%22
> http://www.phmc.state.pa.us/bah/dam/rg/di/r11_089_BirthIndexes/Birth_1909/M.PDF
> Steve 'Narcissistic Bigot' Petruzzellis

Just brainless trolling. And I am responding to that trolling. THAT is
what the "Pothead circus" is. Everyone is Pothead -- the oldest gag in
the book. Wow! How did Pothead get *so* narcissistic he concludes everything
is about his comments?? Pothead is trying again to slime Kaspersky. The
encryption is real, its presence at any point in time being on your Chrome
virtual drive is a short circuit. Chrisv has been over this, in exquisite
detail previously, Pothead.

--
One Smart Penny!
https://www.google.com/search?q=Steve+Petruzzellis%3A+narcissistic+bigot
Dustin Cook is a functionally illiterate fraud