MacInTouch Amazon link...

Apple photo software/alternatives

Channels
Apple, Troubleshooting, Products, Questions
Joe, FYI... I've installed Mojave and Aperture in a VMWare Fusion virtual HD for the sole purpose of running Aperture after I upgrade to Catalina. I moved my Aperture photos library to the macOS/VMware shared folder, but I've been unable to open it in Aperture in VMWare Fusion. I receive the following Aperture error message when I attempt to open the Aperture photos library: "Unable to write to library 'Aperture Library 2".
Aperture itself opens without a problem in the Mojave virtual machine. It just can't seem to access the Aperture photos library. I'd appreciate anybody's thoughts on how to solve this problem.
This seems different from the issues I've seen before - perhaps related to your library being in a shared folder. Maybe a permissions issue?

The issue I normally see reported is that Aperture will launch just fine and will open the library and display thumbnails of your photos, but you can't open/view the full-size images. The error reported is that the [virtual] computer you are trying to run Aperture on does not support the minimum graphics requirements.
 


There is a very detailed article explaining the discovery, development, and implementation of a complex hack that allows Aperture and iPhoto to run with most functionality intact on Catalina systems. The most notable things that don't work are QuickTime-related video operations. It's an excellent bit of sleuthing, but be aware that executing the hack involves things like disabling SIP, copying a Mojave library onto a Catalina system, and some sorcery with Xcode and the command line. Future macOS updates almost certainly will break the hack, so at least some steps would need to be repeated after updating a system.
While I can't recommend that anyone install the hack unless they really know what they're doing, the article itself may be very interesting to some readers:
P.S.: I haven't tried the hack myself, so all caveats apply.
For those interested in getting Aperture to run on Catalina, Nik Bhatt has written up some simplified instructions. Nik is the author of RawPower which accesses the underlying Apple RAW engine functionality and is available for macOS and iOS. He worked for Apple for many years and led the RAW Camera and Core Image teams. RawPower is a very nice editing app.
Gentlemen Coders said:
Aperture For Catalina
Using the excellent investigation and instructions from Tyshawn Cormier (article here), I have replicated his work and gotten Aperture to open on Catalina.

You can follow his steps where you build everything from scratch, or you can use my approach which provides most of what you need. Note: this is untested software. No promises.
 


Okay, I walked into Apple Photos no longer seeing my iPhone. Since I needed a photo for something really important, I called Apple Support. I eventually got to John. Together we actually have a workaround:
  1. Open up Photos on iPhone and find the Photo you need to send
  2. Select the photo
  3. Then tap share in the lower corner
  4. Airdrop should be on, if not, turn it on
  5. Tap on your Computer icon
  6. Your Download folder on your Mac will auto-open
  7. Reset your open to date, and look for today
This is the workaround when your updated iPhone is no loner seen in Photos.
 


Ric Ford

MacInTouch
Okay, I walked into Apple Photos no longer seeing my iPhone. Since I needed a photo for something really important, I called Apple Support. I eventually got to John. Together we actually have a workaround:
  1. Open up Photos on iPhone and find the Photo you need to send
  2. Select the photo
  3. Then tap share in the lower corner
  4. Airdrop should be on, if not, turn it on
  5. Tap on your Computer icon
  6. Your Download folder on your Mac will auto-open
  7. Reset your open to date, and look for today
This is the workaround when your updated iPhone is no loner seen in Photos.
Alternatively:
  1. Open up Photos on iPhone and find the Photo you need to send
  2. Select the photo
  3. Then tap share in the lower corner
  4. Choose Mail
  5. Email the photo to yourself
  6. Open the email on your Mac to get the photo.
Email could potentially have issues with large files, which are not a problem for AirDrop, but if you keep AirDrop disabled (e.g. for stronger security), it may be more of a hassle to enable it than to send the photo by email when the file size isn't a problem (and it usually isn't for JPEGs, like almost all iPhone photos).

Another option that's often better for collections of photos: Use the Image Capture on your Mac, connecting the iPhone via USB. (Make sure to disable the "delete after import" option if you want to retain the photos on your iPhone.)
 


As "hack" author Tyshawn Cormier says, this is fun, but not for a production system. It also looks so simple, Apple could have fixed Aperture for those of you still clinging on. (Same fixes possible for iPhoto, but not an application users want as much.)
An update on Tyshawn Cormier's complex manually-performed hack to get Aperture to run under Catalina... He has published an application to perform the updates! You simply run the app, and it updates Aperture. It can also update iPhoto – I tested that as well. I am able to run Aperture and open libraries.

 



An update on Tyshawn Cormier's complex manually-performed hack to get Aperture to run under Catalina... He has published an application to perform the updates! You simply run the app, and it updates Aperture. It can also update iPhoto – I tested that as well. I am able to run Aperture and open libraries.
Interesting hack! I wonder if the patched version of Aperture will open the Photos library? Would I be able to use both Photos and Aperture with the same library?
 


Interesting hack! I wonder if the patched version of Aperture will open the Photos library? Would I be able to use both Photos and Aperture with the same library?
You cannot share the library in a useful way. When you open an Aperture/iPhoto library in Photos, it will create a new converted library roughly the same size as the original, in the same directory. You then get a message "The content of this iPhoto library already has been migrated to the Photos app. This library can be opened in Aperture, but any changes, including importing new photos, will not appear in the iPhotos library"
 


A bit frustrated with ON1's "upgrade" policy - they essentially are creating a "new major version release" on a calendar year basis, rather than on an actual feature basis. So for me, as a 2019 registered owner, I get to pay at least $79 annually for the new version. Exactly how is this any different than a subscription model? Yes, I don't have to upgrade and can still use 2019 as long as it works, it just seems sneaky.

Remember when version number software upgrades happened when there were new/big enough features to justify it, instead of the calendar just turning over?

Yeah... me neither, these days.
 


A bit frustrated with ON1's "upgrade" policy - they essentially are creating a "new major version release" on a calendar year basis, rather than on an actual feature basis. So for me, as a 2019 registered owner, I get to pay at least $79 annually for the new version. Exactly how is this any different than a subscription model? Yes, I don't have to upgrade and can still use 2019 as long as it works, it just seems sneaky.
Remember when version number software upgrades happened when there were new/big enough features to justify it, instead of the calendar just turning over?
Yeah... me neither, these days.
QuarkXPress are doing exactly the same thing. And they drop support for older versions. They drop support for older macOSes, too. Essentially, forced annual upgrade.
 


Ric Ford

MacInTouch
We had a little discussion a while back about photo hosting/sharing services, but I don't think it was definitive, and I've since had some conversations with other photographers about creating photo websites, sharing and selling photos online.

Here are a few options I knew or found, none of which I've used personally for hosting photos online. I'd be interested in hearing others' recommendations.
  • Format
  • PortfolioBox
  • SmugMug
  • Jalbum
  • Zenfolio
  • Photoshelter
  • WordPress with photo-oriented themes
  • SquareSpace
  • Adobe cloud services (My Portfolio)
  • Other options: Foliolink, Cargo Collective, 22Slides, AllYou, Krop, Fotomerchant, Photofolio, Dunked

#photography #hosting #website #portfolio
 



We had a little discussion a while back about photo hosting/sharing services, but I don't think it was definitive, and I've since had some conversations with other photographers about creating photo websites, sharing and selling photos online.

Here are a few options I knew or found, none of which I've used personally for hosting photos online. I'd be interested in hearing others' recommendations.
  • Format
  • PortfolioBox
  • SmugMug
  • Jalbum
  • Zenfolio
  • Photoshelter
  • WordPress with photo-oriented themes
  • SquareSpace
  • Adobe cloud services (My Portfolio)
  • Others options: Foliolink, Cargo Collective, 22Slides, AllYou, Krop, Fotomerchant, Photofolio, Dunked
Quite timely, Ric. While things are quiet at the start of the year, I'm going to do a trial of SmugMug. From what I've read, it's the most photographer-driven of the options. For not much money they also offer unlimited storage, which is attractive for additional off-site protection.

SquareSpace also seems well regarded but is a bit more general in its focus (pardon the pun).

I have used JAlbum for online albums but not for a number of years - it was just OK.

WordPress has some nice photographic themes, but most are paid, and some are loosely based on SquareSpace or SmugMug designs.

Personally, I would avoid the Adobe offering, just because it's Adobe...
 


We had a little discussion a while back about photo hosting/sharing services.... Here are a few options I knew or found, none of which I've used personally for hosting photos online. I'd be interested in hearing others' recommendations.
I have used PBase (pbase.com) as a very inexpensive place to "hang" photos in galleries for a number of years. It doesn't have all the bells and whistles that a pro might want to create a differentiated site. But as an ad-free, hassle-free, embarassment-free, spam-free place to point people to for viewing my photos, it has served my simple needs admirably. Galleries (as well as individual images) can also be made public or kept private as desired. As ever, I have no connection to the site other than as a user.
 


Here are a few options I knew or found, none of which I've used personally for hosting photos online. I'd be interested in hearing others' recommendations.
I've been using SmugMug for about 3 years now. It's very simple to use in its basic form – uploading and sorting is a doddle, as is keywording and searching.Layouts are customisable with public and private areas.

The commercial version that I use (at www.jazzmugs.net) offers lots of extras for selling, printing, mounting and delivery, etc..

On the down side, I find that search engines are not pulling up my images as often as I would like (even though they are titled and keyworded to within an inch of their lives!). Perhaps I need to spend a little more time in the relevant pages to see where I'm going wrong.
 


Last year, Chuq Von Rospach had some interesting things to say about using Flickr for photography:
Thanks for the article link. I used to be a Flickr "Pro" user when they were still owned by Yahoo. I wasn't using it much, so when SmugMug bought them, I downgraded to a basic (free) user. However, I have discovered over the past few months that it's probably better than most platforms in photo sharing. When they offered a discount in December I upgraded to "Pro" again.
 


I have been using a very barebones photo sharing setup for several years now. I take pictures at my son's swim meets and make them available for the other swimmers parents. My no-cost solution for making full resolution pictures available is to create a swimteam_name_n@gmail.com Google account and put pictures in the photos area (with an album for each meet) until I've used all 15 GB of free storage. Then I create swimteam_name_n+1@gmail.com and continue. After each meet I distribute the album link to the team families and they can see their kids being awesome.
 


... Here are a few options I knew or found, none of which I've used personally for hosting photos online. I'd be interested in hearing others' recommendations.
... SmugMug...​
I've been a SmugMug user for probably 10 years. I'm not a professional photographer. It's perfect for sharing photos to family and friends and other parents of my kids events. The photos/videos look great and don't get hammered by excessive compression like most free offerings.

They have several account levels. I only use the basic account, so although people can buy prints and other products based on the photos, I don't get any royalties. That requires a more expensive SmugMug account. Users can download original images or share the galleries with others.

It's an OK site for sharing videos, as well, with a sometimes problematic limitation. The videos can be downloaded without re-compression, but they are limited to 20 minutes in length (last time I checked). That makes it unusable for sharing things like a soccer game video or kids play, which typically exceed 20 minutes. But it's great for privately sharing videos of events that would get flagged by YouTube, due to background music, and easy for others to download, unlike Youtube.

I would recommend SmugMug.
 


I've been a SmugMug user for probably 10 years. I'm not a professional photographer. It's perfect for sharing photos to family and friends and other parents of my kids events. ...
I use it in a very similar way for family and travel albums and short videos. I think the results look very professional, too!
 



Flicker may not be around much longer, and it makes me wonder about the health of SmugMug. I'm not a customer of either.
I'm always concerned about web and cloud platforms' continued existence. Look at MobileMe, which wiped out my, and many other people's, Web publishing efforts. If they don't disappear, they can get acquired, change rules and privacy policies, and alter or drop features with little or no recourse. And they're incented to continuously change, or they no longer seem new and may stop growing their user base, a death knell for tech today.

Having said that, SmugMug is a paid service, so they have at least some opportunity for financial health.
 


[Smugmug] have several account levels. I only use the basic account, so although people can buy prints and other products based on the photos, I don't get any royalties. That requires a more expensive SmugMug account.
Did I misunderstand, or are you saying that SmugMug can sell your photos and you get nothing?
 


Did I misunderstand, or are you saying that SmugMug can sell your photos and you get nothing?
You can, as I do, keep your photos and albums private. If, say, a family member wants to pay for a printed photo or album, they can, if you permit it.

I don’t think SmugMug can arbitrarily sell your photos. You could set up a shop and reap some income, but SmugMug cannot sell your photos on its own.

(Correct me if I’m wrong in any way.)
 


Did I misunderstand, or are you saying that SmugMug can sell your photos and you get nothing?
It would appear that's correct. I emailed them and asked them to confirm.
SmugMug said:
Thank you for contacting SmugMug. People can buy your photos at any of the levels but only the Portfolio and Pro levels have the ability to set pricing to earn a profit as they are our commerce plans. If people buy prints (or other items) at the Basic or Power level, it would be at the base cost with no profit to the photographer.

It is possible to turn the shopping cart off so that people can't buy at the base cost if that isn't wanted. (Sometimes people don't mind friends and family buying prints at their cost, for example and don't mind having the shopping cart on but professional photographers usually do the top two plans to earn a profit.)
 


...about photo hosting/sharing services...
A lot of photographers I know use PhotoShelter (which you know about). Personally, I found their incessant marketing annoying and now use PhotoDeck, which (for me) has the advantage of being European-based. As far as I know, these are the only two hosts with all the options needed by photographers who want to allow controlled downloading and/or selling either of prints or digital rights. They're the only hosts I've been able to find who understand and make full use of IPTC metadata embedded in files. But these features come at a price and may not be of importance to everyone, especially if you just want to share family photos.

A word of warning to those who want to find a host to backup their pictures: Digital Railroad. A lot of photographers had a bad experience when they went bust. The whole sorry saga is documented on the PhotoShelter site (where most photographers rebuilt their web presence).

For those who like to roll their own, The Turning Gate offers a good solution. It is designed to work with Lightroom, so that may rule it out for some here! However it is very customisable and IPTC-compatible. There's also a helpful, friendly community forum. I seem to have the idea that it is possible to run a Turning Gate site without using Lightroom – you'd need to FTP your pictures directly, rather than use Lightroom's publish service.

If you already host your own WordPress site, Sunshine Photo Cart may be worth a look. It ticks all my boxes, but (last time I asked) doesn't support IPTC.
 


We had a little discussion a while back about photo hosting/sharing services, but I don't think it was definitive, and I've since had some conversations with other photographers about creating photo websites, sharing and selling photos online.
Here are a few options I knew or found, none of which I've used personally for hosting photos online. I'd be interested in hearing others' recommendations.
  • Format
  • PortfolioBox
  • SmugMug
  • Jalbum
  • Zenfolio
  • Photoshelter
  • WordPress with photo-oriented themes
  • SquareSpace
  • Adobe cloud services (My Portfolio)
  • Other options: Foliolink, Cargo Collective, 22Slides, AllYou, Krop, Fotomerchant, Photofolio, Dunked
I am using Apple's iCloud service for storing my 27k+ photos (with a paid 2GB plan). All of them are post-processed. Starting with Mobile Me and Aperture, up until now, I luckily never lost a picture. Now I am working with Apple Photos plus Affinity and Luminar as plugins. Of course, I have a backup of my library.

Being a guy wearing belt and suspenders, I export all processed photos as Jpegs in maximal quality and store them on Amazon. I am an Amazon Prime customer, and Amazon Prime will store all my photos without limit. The website looks quite nice, and one point important for me is that I can share individual pictures or folders with friends, who can download them in full resolution. I don't use the Amazon categorizing attempts. The fine print says that my photos are my property. Up until now I am quite content with this solution.
 


... I emailed them and asked them to confirm.
It is possible to turn the shopping cart off so that people can't buy at the base cost if that isn't wanted.
... So, yes there is a mode where folks are paying for having prints developed (and SmugMug probably gets a commission on that work from someone else). What is being paid for is the printing, not the photo.

SmugMug also has multiple vectors of protection for your photos.
SmugMug said:
Secure and Private Photo Sharing To Protect Your Photos
... Concerned about who sees your photos? You decide who can see your site, galleries, pages, or photos. Make anything public, accessible to a select few, or completely private. Want to protect your photos further? Safeguard your work with watermarks, custom right-click messages, and password protection. And the copyright on your photos? It's always yours.
The notion here that it is the "Wild, Wild West" on your photos once uploaded to SmugMug is not a well-grounded connotation. There is some responsibility for setting the parameters on your own photos. One configuration of those parameters would let anyone print them.
 


It would appear that's correct. I emailed them and asked them to confirm....
That sounds perfectly reasonable. I had to switch photo sales services a couple of years ago, as the one I was using (Exposure Manager) was bought out, stopped all new feature development, and basically withered away on the vine with no mobile support and 10+-year-old products and templates. They actually closed down just a month or two after I switched platforms.

Anyway, I went back and forth between SmugMug and Zenfoilo and ended up going with Zenfolio, mainly because they give you the opportunity to have multiple custom price lists at a lower service tier than SmugMug ($240/year vs $360), and their commission is lower (10% vs 15%).

As Trilo noted in his response from SmugMug, their lower-tier plans allow customers to buy products at-cost, so essentially without a photographer price list. Say the actual cost of a 4x6 print is $0.29, then that's what a customer can order. In a plan with price lists, the photographer can set a price equal to or above that $0.29 to establish a profit margin. That then requires SmugMug to hold funds for later disbursement, track it for taxes, issue 1099 forms at the end of the year, potentially coordinate sales tax collection, etc. Hence, higher plan rates and the commission. So, on those low-tier plans, offering up product sales is little different than forwarding the order to Walgreen's for printing - there's really nothing nefarious about it.
 


On the SmugMug and Flicker issues, see this article:
Flicker may not be around much longer, and it makes me wonder about the health of SmugMug. I'm not a customer of either.
The business was never deeply based on an advertising revenue model. They also relatively quickly outsourced the bulk of the storage infrastructure platform to Amazon Cloud with their own software service layered on top. SmugMug has rarely been the "lowest-cost" option. They have always had 'value add' on top of the storage they provide.

Flickr, on the other hand, went through a phase where they were offering to be a large photo collection dump site for free, on the premise that showing ads while folks maybe wandered though the photo collection would pay for the storage costs. Yahoo also tried to run the storage tier "in house" with the rest of their large data center footprint. Flickr was to be part of the social media network, and the economies of storage provision would come from the economies of scale of the linked social network.

The "outside" view of the services may look the same, but the businesses have been run differently.

In my opinion, SmugMug is having problems getting the number of folks who are using Flickr "free" to a low enough ratio vs. the folks paying to offset the "give aways'. They essentially triggered a purge of folks who were primarily using it as a free repository. However, there were also lots of "public commons" collections on Flickr that they ended up having to give exceptions to.

What Flickr is missing is probably a lower tier. What they have now is either free or "all you can store." Some kind of $20/year plan with a reasonable capacity (and no 3rd-party discounts) would probably be better, but they don't seem to want to go there.
(Amazon Cloud Drive, for example, is $20 for 100 GB. So, say, 50-80GB, considering streaming costs, with an average size of photo/video being 16MB and one back up - it is around 1500-2500 items.)

I know Flickr ran a holiday promotion for 25% off Pro, but it wasn't clear that it wasn't just a one-year promotion (I didn't read all of the fine print). They need something more than just short-term that is a lower cost.

Flickr probably has two high cost factors. First is the 'free' stuff. The second, though, is the folks who take "unlimited" literally – a high percentage on the basic plan with close to 1 TB of stuff is also probably close to a loss. (Amazon Drive 1TB is ~ $60/year.) They have both, and it is the folks in the middle who have to pay for those overages. They need more folks in the middle who are willing to pay some, but not most, of that overage. The major flaw has been that they have moved really slowly on growing that segment.

SmugMug has somewhat recently added a discount to SmugMug service in a Pro "discount". It may be that all that they were really interested in was getting a list of folks willing to pay $50+/year. ("If all you have is a hammer...")
 


I've been a SmugMug user at the 'Power User' level for many years. I find that that level provides an appropriate level of organization, security, and presentation for me. Note that, in relation to the marketing of prints and products, it is possible to turn off the shopping cart on an album by album basis, so that the site looks truly personal and non-commercial.

By the way, one of the benefits of the Power User level is the ability to alias the domain to a non-SmugMug identifier, so that one can easily associate the photo library with one's personal website.

By the way, SmugMug does offer referral discounts and rebates. So if you decide to play with SmugMug, you should use a referral code from a user who was influential in your decision.
 


Ric Ford

MacInTouch
... So, yes there is a mode where folks are paying for having prints developed (and SmugMug probably gets a commission on that work from someone else). What is being paid for is the printing, not the photo. SmugMug also has multiple vectors of protection for your photos.
There is some responsibility for setting the parameters on your own photos. One configuration of those parameters would let anyone print them.
Remaining questions:
  • Can you hide some photos from public view but still allow a customer to see and print them via a personalized password you create for the customer?
  • If so, can you do this with a "Basic" account?
I found another support document about photo protection, but it didn't seem to answer these questions (and I don't have an account to answer them myself):
SmugMug said:
I found one more related document:
SmugMug said:
 


Remaining questions:
  • Can you hide some photos from public view but still allow a customer to see and print them via a personalized password you create for the customer?
  • If so, can you do this with a "Basic" account?
You can password-protect by folder, gallery, web page or entire site. This is listed as a feature under the Basic account.
 


Ric Ford

MacInTouch
You can password-protect by folder, gallery, web page or entire site. This is listed as a feature under the Basic account.
Yes, I understand that, but let me put the question in a different way. What is the workflow to hide/protect your images but still make them available to select, authorized users to view and print? In other words, can you create completely password-protected galleries on the Basic plan where you create passwords for individual users to access and print from the gallery? Or does that require a "Pro" account?
 


In other words, can you create completely password-protected galleries on the Basic plan where you create passwords for individual users to access and print from the gallery? Or does that require a "Pro" account?
You create a single password for a particular gallery. Anyone you give that password to has access. Each gallery can have a unique password. Passwords are not assigned to individuals. And, yes, it works on the Basic account.

You can also hide a particular gallery from public view. It then requires that a unique URL be known to load. It isn't then password protected per se, but knowing the URL is akin to knowing a password.

(I should add that hidden galleries are not searchable. You can't stumble upon them via Google Search unless the URL was published on some other website.)
 


I have been using Zenfolio since the early days of their existence. Since then, their services have expanded significantly and now include many features that cater to pro and semi-pro photographers.

You can create multiple galleries within your account, and each gallery can be configured for public or private access, with a password unique to that gallery. This is obviously useful for pros who shoot weddings, etc. You can specify the display size for each image, and which sizes (including the originals and raw files) are available for downloading. There are many options for customizing the appearance of your site, and at some subscription levels, you can use your own domain name. You can enable your site for e-commerce, so visitors can directly purchase images and print products. I think there is also an option for running your site as a blog.

I use my site only for sharing photos and videos with friends and family, not for selling content. I have minor quibbles with the user interface of their system - it can be a bit confusing when you are starting out. But overall, I have no major problems. Note that I have no experience with SmugMug or Flickr, so I can't offer comments comparing their systems.

If you want to see how I use Zenfolio, you can visit my site at

 


We had a little discussion a while back about photo hosting/sharing services, but I don't think it was definitive, and I've since had some conversations with other photographers about creating photo websites, sharing and selling photos online. Here are a few options I knew or found, none of which I've used personally for hosting photos online. I'd be interested in hearing others' recommendations.
  • Format
  • PortfolioBox
  • SmugMug
  • Jalbum
  • Zenfolio
  • Photoshelter
  • WordPress with photo-oriented themes
  • SquareSpace
  • Adobe cloud services (My Portfolio)
  • Other options: Foliolink, Cargo Collective, 22Slides, AllYou, Krop, Fotomerchant, Photofolio, Dunked
A while back I found PhotoStore by KTools, to share my photos with a non-traditional client base. I've been covering community events at school and sharing the photos with the families. Sadly, one of the two main developers died, and the survivor decided to let the product die a slow death. Thankfully, it's still working for me, but I'm worried that will end suddenly.

I found another product called PhotoStore, from CMS Account, which I'm trying to adapt my work to, but it's not the same, primarily on the client-access side. I keep the bulk of my work restricted to users I have granted access to, which the original PhotoStore handled well. Galleries could be linked to groups of users. It didn't have a good link to ordering prints, which the new PhotoStore has (along with some other interesting features).

Anyone know how to contact KTools? Or know of a better replacement than what I've found? I want to host the software myself, and have too many photos to share for most of the well-known options.
 




At the beginning of each new year, I duplicate my Apple Photos library (2019) and rename the copy (2020). I then open 2020 and delete all photos/movies from 2018, leaving the 2019 photos and what few photos I've taken in 2020. I then rebuild the 2020 library by holding down the option/command keys when opening Photos.

To my surprise, the Finder still reports the 2020 library as the same size as the 2019 library, 44GB, even though 2020 has approximately half the number of photos/movies in it.

Is there some what I can compact the 2020 library to reduce the file size shown in the Finder?
 


I can't really add anything to the positive comments re SmugMug other than to say I've been a satisfied customer almost since they started their business. One aspect I particularly appreciate is the swift and complete response when I have a question. I find it particularly frustrating with many online companies when they reply with a canned response that makes it obvious they never even read one's question.
 


Amazon disclaimer:
"As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases."

Latest posts