MacInTouch Amazon link...

Apple photo software/alternatives

Channels
Apple, Troubleshooting, Products, Questions
The "managed" library option was designed for non-technical users less comfortable with working around the computer's file system who want a one-stop option. Those are also likely users with limited-size libraries that'd work well on a single machine. Any heavy shooter or pro would want referenced libraries. That's where Aperture excelled, with a robust reconnection interface for when systems migrate to new computers, files get backed up, etc. Worked flawlessly. This is also where Capture One can [lose sync, if you] make file/folder moves outside of the program. Short version: don't do it!
I'm a pretty technical user, but I'm also extremely short on time, so another benefit of the managed option is increased productivity, as long as I either trust the management software completely (unlikely) and/or make sure I can find the originals if I need to. I use Apple Photos to manage nearly 20,000 pictures and iTunes to manage ~45,000 tracks, but I know where my files are!

As it turns out, though, when I take photos with my Canon 70D, the Canon software is better at correcting the lens characteristics, so I use that to correct for my lens, generate top-quality jpg files from the corrected Canon RAWs (CR2s), and import them into Apple Photos. I would have loved it if that step were not necessary.
 


Thanks for mentioning that, as it brings up another issue with managed catalogs that grow very large: backup. Constantly backing up changes to a 10TB catalog is quite the challenge, backup-wise, vs. backing up changes to a handful of files in the 10MB range! How big is your backup drive?!
Because the Aperture catalog is a package (to the file system and Time Machine, just a special folder with lots of contents), a differential backup is only tracking changes to files and folders within the package. So it's not quite as bad as it sounds - editing one photo doesn't require a full new backup of the entire catalog. That said, editing may cause lots of files to be modified and backed up (preview files of different sizes, etc), so it may not be 'efficient' - depending on how you define efficient.
And I used to use Lotus/IBM Notes for work email, which updated a huge file multiple times an hour. I had to remove that from my Time Machine backups. iTunes and Apple Photos are much more friendly for Time Machine by using packages [with embedded separate] files.
 


A few folks have asked that I share my Capture One import and catalog strategy, so here it is. I figured this out after struggling with its [features/options] - Session? Managed Catalog? Folders? Projects? Albums? ...

I always copy first from the memory card to the destination disk. I usually name by date, hierarchic folders for year (2019), month (05.2019), then date of import (05.30.19 Z7) into which folder go the actual files, to include everything since the last import. I typically add what camera the import was from, and separate by camera source. Then if it's all one topic, I might add that (client, project, etc). I never trust a program to manage the copy function for me, and you can quickly verify successful transfer....

Then in Capture One I set up a Project for the year, then albums within that match the file structure. (You can't put projects within projects, but you can put albums within albums.) When I get to the date album, I have that selected to use as the import folder, then import. After import is done, I assign keywords, make smart albums (to automatically place by keyword), etc.

I then set up an export folder as meets needs, usually somewhere within that hierarchy, as I'd want my exports for client, sharing etc to be in proximity to the originals. Working with export "recipes" is very efficient.

I know this sounds clunky, and maybe there's a better way. Sessions never appealed to me, although it might for pros who like to keep every assignment separate. But it is reliable, consistent and gives me an instant reference to where originals are. None of this is as elegant in my opinion as the late, great Aperture that Apple so stupidly abandoned, but Capture One at least gives quality that surpasses anything else and they keep improving.

In Capture One, Folder is an operation at file-system level. I've noted before that it's easy for the program to lose connection if you move files from the Finder [but] by doing it within the Folder part of Capture One, you can avoid that.

If you're learning Capture One, the Lynda.com tutorials are well done and easy to quickly get up to speed.
 


Constantly backing up changes to a 10TB catalog is quite the challenge, backup-wise ... (Time Machine local snapshots of such a catalog package would seem to be impossible on an internal SSD, though local snapshots of individual image files and modest SQL databases shouldn't be a problem.)
Local snapshots is a scenario where APFS shines. APFS's "clone" feature allows the file system to maintain multiple versions of the file by sharing their common blocks and storing their differences. This allows the system to store these snapshots in a space-efficient manner. (This isn't quite like ZFS's de-duplication, which actively seeks out duplicate blocks to eliminate them. It only kicks in when you make copies of a file – which is what incremental backups require.)

This illustration may help explain:

Of course, that doesn't help with true off-machine backups. Retrospect used to be the bee’s knees for storing and retrieving versions. Probably still good… anyone in the MacInTouch community a current Retrospect user?
 


I know this is slightly off topic, but I have been looking at Synology to use as a local and remote private photo server for my machines and when I'm on the road, and I'm not thrilled with their software. Is it possible to use their Diskstation software without having to run Java or Flash?
Better late than never? Yes. I use an old Synology DS214 and mount its file volumes on my Macs via SMB. I'm not a super heavy user of it though. I was given it by someone who upgraded, so I threw a disk in it and use it for random stuff.
 


Continuing my tale of woe concerning Hasselblad Flextight scanners, all links to pages on the Hasselblad site have disappeared, and ScanDig is reporting they are discontinued:
and

There is no announcement on the Hasselblad site about this, and I have e-mailed a contact at HasselbladBron in the USA asking for confirmation. Perhaps they will finally let Ed Hamrick work his magic on their abandoned scanners, but if not, I'll be relying on older Macs that can run High Sierra.
 


Any heavy shooter or pro would want referenced libraries.
... I'm a professionally trained photographer and am still semi-active. I've always used Aperture's managed library, because I have no interest, or need, to use a self-made, complicated file structure. Aperture is so reliable that I can be completely confident that it will handle everything for me. My library is currently north of 2 TB. It is backed up via Time Machine, as well as 2 Aperture Vaults, one of which is always kept off-site. I have moved the library several times over the almost 15 years I've been using Aperture, with no problems at all. I have also done a test rebuild from one of the vaults on a seperate computer and the rebuild was perfect.... I trust it and have no interest in re-inventing the wheel.
 


As for accessing the originals, an Aperture library, just like a managed Capture One Pro catalogue, is a macOS package, which you can option-click to open and navigate. The beauty of a managed library/catalogue is that you can just launch the app and import your images. No need to have a predetermined folder scheme. The app handles everything for you.
I used to be of the same opinion. I happliy let Aperture manage everything for me. It is an easy way to go about things. Then, my library started weighing in close to, and then more than, 1 TB. The main problem that arose is backups.

Vaults are all well and good (moot now, since I moved away from Aperture). They still, however, place your files on a spinning disc. I don't like spinners as a long-term backup/archive strategy. I prefer optical media (currently using M-disc).

Yes, you can look inside a package, but Aperture's package is not that easy to navigate. The disadvantage of not having your own folder structure is you have to decode Aperture's. It's not simple to track down individual photos. It also does not lend itself to incremental backups to media less than the size of the full library.

With the demise of Aperture, I reluctantly switched to Lightroom at the end of 2018. I still like Aperture better, but it is what it is. When planning the migration, I decided to go with a referenced library. I have found it to have many advantages over a managed library.

I have a folder on a working drive called "Photos." Inside that, I have a folder for each Lightroom catalog (Aperture library) and a folder for each catalog's original images.

When I import photos, I simply place them in a folder with a date name, for example, "2019-05-21" If it is an event, I'll name the image folder more descriptively, e.g. "2019-05 Florida Trip." When a new import folder is added, I open the Lightroom catalog and sync. All the new photos are imported into the catalog.

Each import folder sits inside the catalog's image folder. This ends up looking like the "Masters" folder in an Aperture library but with several advantages:

1. I control the naming convention, making it easier to find things. Lightroom lists everything with the same folder structure/names I create, so it remains consistent inside and outside the DAM. I can go back and rename folders and just need to "sync" inside Lightroom.​
2. This same set can easily be transferred to another DAM in the future (avoiding the migration heasaches I had from Aperture). Just point the other DAM at the parent folder and done. No import/export/migration hassle.​
3. Backups are much easier...​
For example, everything in my 2018 photo folder is backed up to optical disc (among other backup methods). I have those folders with a Finder tag as "burned to disc." I can see at a glance what is burned and what isn't. As new folders are added (new dates imported), I can choose to burn and mark as needed. It's easy to make things fit on a single optical disc. The catalog files (library) are small enough to include on the same disc.

I do like some of the features of Apple Photos and have integrated that into my system. After I cull photos and process them in Lightroom, I export as Jpegs. Those jpegs are then imported into Photos and can be shared among devices and people. This allows me to keep a small "Photos" library without having to pick and choose which photos to sync.

It's definitely a matter of personal preference. The above has worked for me - I only hope I explained it well. It is much simpler than it sounds.
 


I've been a Lightroom user for a number of years, but, like many others, have been somewhat uncomfortable with the subscription model.

I started testing some potential replacements for Lightroom and, after trialing (and discarding) a number of apps, I think I've found one that works well and has a similar-enough interface to give it a solid "thumb's up". It's Alien Skin Exposure X4.

It doesn't use a catalog, so there's no actual "importing" going on. It does support keywording and has an easily understandable workflow using layers. In some ways, it's similar to Luminar (which I do like and use).

Exposure X4 lets you create virtual copies of your photos (a feature Lightroom and very few other apps had until recently).

While Alien Skin doesn't provide any PDF user manual, there are many video tutorials (both official from the company and many more by pros on YouTube). These tutorials give the app a fairly easy learning curve. While there are some migration issues (from Lightroom), these are carefully detailed, and the company actually provides a migration tool that automates the process. The app is abut $100, but they do provide an academic discount for appropriate users.
 


A contact at Hasselblad confirms the Flextight scanners are discontinued but doesn't know when there will be a public announcement. I bet they are hoping to sell off existing inventory first.
 


Ric Ford

MacInTouch
Thanks, I hadn't realized that, but I now see that a Capture One catalog is a "package" that combines image files stored "within" a managed catalog (package) alongside the catalog's SQLite database.
Experimenting more with Capture One import, I found that the "managed" catalog option (import "inside catalog") stores files inside the "package" in a folder structure by import time (not photo capture time):

catalogname/Originals/year/month/date/importbatch/file​

For example, an import today of an old photo puts it here:
MyCatalog/Originals/2019/06/22/1/DSC021.jpg​

There is great flexibility in file naming, however, with "tokens" that you can assemble to automatically create your filenames and save as a preset. I'm working on a scheme like this for filename creation when importing:

Filename template:
YYYY-MM-DD_ModelOfCamera​
Result:
2019-03-01_DSC-RX100M3.JPG​
(I'm trying to avoid large numbers of files within a single folder, potentially hurting performance, so lots of small imports instead of one huge import should help mitigate that.)
 


Ric Ford

MacInTouch
Experimenting more with Capture One import, I found that the managed catalog option stores original files inside the "package" in a folder structure by import time (not photo capture time).
An alternative approach, where the files are not copied into the catalog "package", but instead into new Finder folders, offers more flexibility for folder organization during import/copy.

(As before, you can define filename templates to automatically name the files based on their metadata.)

There's an additional option during import with this approach: Location Sub Folder Tokens. Using the same kinds of metadata, you can automatically create folders for the files you're "importing" (copying) into a new location while the catalog is being built.

The key here is the backslash character, which creates a new subfolder level.

In my case, I've created an import "preset" like this:

Image Year \ Image Month \ Image Day of Month \ Camera Model

After import, files are organized in folders like this:

TestPhotos/2019/01/13/NIKON_D90/WinterBerries_2019-01-13_NIKON_D90.NEF

But you can create almost any kind of organization and filenaming scheme you like. For instance, you could add ISO or shutter speed in the filename, or a job/event tag, or a rating - anything that's in the files' metadata.
 



I know there are lots of good options out there for image editing - On1, Luminar, etc. My question really pertains more specifically to DAM [Digital Asset Management] usage. I have all my digital images/video in a managed Aperture library, but macOS 10.15 will officially break it, so I have got to either a) not upgrade or b) find a good DAM alternative.

I have the Nik suite of plugins and generally don't do any major heavy lifting with image editing. My wishlist is topped with finding another app that could either use or import my existing Aperture library. I don't mind exporting it first into a referenced file structure, if needed, but was curious if there was anything that could just use it "as is" (other than Apple's Photos app - haven't been overwhelmed with it).

So, that's pretty much it, I need a good DAM to replace Aperture. Thoughts? The idea of the transition makes me a bit queasy... but I suppose this is a good time to cull/keyword my library... sigh....
 


Ric Ford

MacInTouch
... So, that's pretty much it, I need a good DAM to replace Aperture. Thoughts? ...
As discussed above, Capture One has several options for managing media, and it's working well for me in all respects, although some Aperture fans don't appreciate it and have criticized its clunky file-management interface, which could be better but doesn't seem like a critical problem to me.

Capture One is very fast, customizable, fully featured and powerful with tons of options for DAM, and produces outstanding results, but it's pricy and takes a little learning (aided by a good user manual and tutorial resources, and I was able to get up to speed pretty quickly). You can try it out for 30 days free of charge, and there are less expensive versions dedicated to Sony or Fuji cameras, if you don't need support for Nikon, Canon, etc.

I'm sure others will chime in with their favorites, too (e.g. see discussion above about Exposure X4). You might want to take a look at the following utility in the meantime, which could help to migrate to Capture One or other Aperture replacements: Aperture Exporter.
 


I know there are lots of good options out there for image editing - On1, Luminar, etc. My question really pertains more specifically to DAM [Digital Asset Management] usage. I have all my digital images/video in a managed Aperture library, but macOS 10.15 will officially break it, so I have got to either a) not upgrade or b) find a good DAM alternative.
I have the Nik suite of plugins and generally don't do any major heavy lifting with image editing. My wishlist is topped with finding another app that could either use or import my existing Aperture library. I don't mind exporting it first into a referenced file structure, if needed, but was curious if there was anything that could just use it "as is" (other than Apple's Photos app - haven't been overwhelmed with it).
So, that's pretty much it, I need a good DAM to replace Aperture. Thoughts? The idea of the transition makes me a bit queasy... but I suppose this is a good time to cull/keyword my library... sigh....
I moved from Aperture to Lightroom. You can search MacInTouch for the various comments; some love/like Lightroom, some hate it for various reasons. I found it fairly easy to move.

I did try Apple Photos for a while, but the DAM was awful. The DAM in Lightroom is better than it used to be, though I think Aperture is still superior. Keep in mind that Lightroom plus Photoshop is $12 a month, forever.
 


Ric Ford

MacInTouch
Experimenting more with Capture One import, I found that the "managed" catalog option (import "inside catalog") stores files inside the "package" in a folder structure by import time (not photo capture time)...
There's an additional option during import with this approach: Location Sub Folder Tokens. Using the same kinds of metadata, you can automatically create folders for the files you're "importing" (copying) into a new location while the catalog is being built....
I just stumbled on a neat trick within Capture One that lets you create a self-contained ("managed") catalog that organizes the files inside the catalog "package" within folders and subfolders by date or whatever other metadata tokens you wish to use.
  1. Create a new catalog in Capture One.
  2. Import images...
    1. Pick a temporary Destination folder - but we won't actually use this...
    2. Configure Sub Folder tokens, e.g. Image year \ Image Month \ Image Day of Month
    3. Go back to Destination and switch it to Inside Catalog.
    4. Configure Naming format as you like for the names of files you're storing in the catalog.
  3. Review Erase Images After Copying to make sure it's as you wish (e.g. uncheck the box).
  4. Select images to import.
  5. Click the Import button.
Now, switch to the Finder, select the catalog file icon and right-click to Show Package Contents. You should see the photo files neatly organized into folders and subfolders as you specified. (Even though the Sub Folder choices are hidden with the Inside Catalog import option, they still work!)

What this means is that you can import a collection of images into a self-contained catalog yet still have them organized into logical hierarchical folders that you can access/retrieve as necessary, and this also should be better at handling very large collections of files than a simpler, flatter folder structure inside the catalog.
 


I just stumbled on a neat trick within Capture One that lets you create a self-contained ("managed") catalog that organizes the files inside the catalog "package" within folders and subfolders by date or whatever other metadata tokens you wish to use.
  1. Create a new catalog in Capture One.
  2. Import images...
    1. Pick a temporary Destination folder - but we won't actually use this...
    2. Configure Sub Folder tokens, e.g. Image year \ Image Month \ Image Day of Month
    3. Go back to Destination and switch it to Inside Catalog.
  3. Review Erase Images After Copying to make sure it's as you wish (e.g. uncheck the box).
  4. Select images to import.
  5. Click the Import button.
...
Your example stores photos by shoot date. Are the files renamed? How might name collisions be handled?

I frequently import from many sources: my SLR, my phone, email, message photos from all members of my family, sometimes images downloaded from the web. It is not uncommon to have multiple photos with the same name but from different sources shot on the same day. Although more difficult to navigate in Finder, there is a logic in Apple’s Photos organizing by import batch, where names almost never collide!
 


Ric Ford

MacInTouch
Your example stores photos by shoot date. Are the files renamed? How might name collisions be handled? I frequently import from many sources: my SLR, my phone, email, message photos from all members of my family, sometimes images downloaded from the web. It is not uncommon to have multiple photos with the same name but from different sources shot on the same day.
I skipped over that detail in my post (now added), but, yes, I actually do rename the files for just that reason, and it's very easy to do. Just specify what you want in the Naming section of the import dialog — you have a wealth of metadata tokens you can use. For example, you can rename the files as you import them into the catalog to incorporate date/time, camera model, format, location, ISO, etc. You could also create subfolders for each camera/source.
Although more difficult to navigate in Finder, there is a logic in Apple’s Photos organizing by import batch, where names almost never collide!
You can do that, instead, if you like — Capture One import is flexible enough to handle it. (That may even be the default behavior.)
 


I'll just throw this out there; it may fit someone's use-case. Caveat; my #1 priority with photos is the date they were taken; chronology is job #1 for me.

I wrote an AppleScript droplet years ago that I use to rename all my digital photos/videos (and MP3's) first thing after copying them to my main storage drive (because what sane person wants 10 files named "_MG_1234.CR2"?, I always thought that was so ridiculous).

My first digital camera was an Olympus, and they use a file-naming scheme that I thought made a lot of sense to my order of priorities. Since Olympus makes other digital media products (such as voice recorders which use "A" for audio as the first character, if I recall correctly), their photo files begin with a "P" for Photo, then the month, using 1-9, A, B, C, then a 2-digit day segment and 4-digit counter segment, a period, and the file extension. Think about it... why not name the file with some useful information rather than something that's totally disposable and almost demands that you replace it?

My script attempts to read the EXIF info, so that it can potentially avoid anomalies that may occur with how exactly the file got to me (email etc.). It renames the file to YY_MDD####.ttt. This tells you the entire date of the file and also facilitates chronologically-correct sorting of the files when collected into a single location for various re-purposing.
 


Ric Ford

MacInTouch
I noticed a huge improvement in speed when the original Affinity Photo app got some updates a while ago (confirmed by another customer recently), and I heard an Apple representative talking about future performance improvements coming from Adobe and others. I wonder if this is one of those:
Adobe said:
Improvements to Lightroom Classic & ACR
Updates are available today for Lightroom Classic and Adobe Camera Raw, our two desktop-centric photography applications. These updates focus on performance and improving your workflow.

GPU Accelerated Editing
Lightroom Classic and Camera Raw take advantage of the more powerful graphics cards (GPUs) while editing, providing a smoother and more responsive experience. GPU acceleration is more pronounced with larger resolution monitors (4k and above) as well as with more powerful GPUs.
 


Ric Ford

MacInTouch
I noticed a huge improvement in speed when the original Affinity Photo app got some updates a while ago (confirmed by another customer recently)...
Probably not as dramatic, but Affinity Photo and Affinity Designer just got new updates, with more performance improvements listed for Affinity Photo.

Meanwhile, Affinity Photo has some features not included in Capture One (as far as I know) for those who need them: HDR Merge, Focus Merge, Stack, and Panorama.
Affinity Photo Help said:
Merging to 32-bit HDR
Multiple exposures of the same subject can be merged to produce an unbounded 32-bit document, which contains a significant amount of tonal range—more, in fact, than most displays outside of specialized equipment can reproduce. The resulting 32-bit image can then be edited with Photo's extensive set of tools, adjustments and filters, or it can be tone mapped in order to map the extensive 32-bit tonal range to a result that looks suitable for most displays.
...
Stitching panoramas
... Multiple images can be stitched together to create a wider and taller scene, referred to as a panorama. The benefits of creating a panorama are:
  • Capturing a much wider view of a scene.
  • Producing higher resolution images than can be achieved with just one exposure; useful for printing large images and other large size applications.
...
Image stacks
Non-destructive image stacks blend together a series of images based on the same scene or almost identical subject matter. Visual differences between images in the series can then be removed, composited together, or used for creative effects.

Use image stacks for:
  • Exposure merging: Merging images of varying exposures.
  • Object Removal: Use a series of images to blend out unwanted subject matter from a specific image in an image set.
  • Noise reduction: Blend together multiple shots of the same subject and average out the noise.
  • Creative effects: Simulate long exposure imagery and combine bright subjects (e.g., fireworks) for a composite effect.
On the flip side, I haven't found Affinity Photo as handy for lens corrections (including chromatic aberration) as Capture One (though I haven't explored it thoroughly).
 


Probably not as dramatic, but Affinity Photo and Affinity Designer just got new updates, with more performance improvements listed for Affinity Photo.
Meanwhile, Affinity Photo has some features not included in Capture One (as far as I know) for those who need them: HDR Merge, Focus Merge, Stack, and Panorama.
On the flip side, I haven't found Affinity Photo as handy for lens corrections (including chromatic aberration) as Capture One (though I haven't explored it thoroughly).
Affinity Photo and the rest of the Affinity suite are a formidable and elegantly integrated solution that I do recommend for those who aren't locked into Adobe's subscription model by their client or work requirements.

But there are limits. Capture One's Raw conversion just kicks butt over all others. This is where Affinity Photo does come up a bit short, though it's adequate for many uses. Capture One has a completely non-destructive workflow that accesses original Raw data for every adjustment, with important quality benefits.

Affinity doesn't have anything for workflow management, and Capture One continues to mature in this area that was once its weak point. Fortunately, it's easy to round-trip from Capture One to another editor for those tasks that have been the province of Photoshop but which now Affinity can mostly handle. And Affinity is nimble and fast, without the legacy of code bloat that slows down the Adobe suite.
 


Ric Ford

MacInTouch
For what it's worth, Serif/Affinity has a 30%-off sale at the moment on its hard-cover guides to Affinity Photo and Affinity Designer, dropping them to $34.99 each (with a free t-shirt included).
 





Kudos to Thorsten Lemke of GraphicConverter. I found a minor bug which I reported it to him. Within 12 hours he squashed the bug and sent me a link to a beta version. It's refreshing to experience such good customer support...
Indeed, just had a similar experience with my wholly unimportant Classic Solitaire from Dogmelon. Graphics failed to size correctly in Catalina, so I emailed Dogmelon, and they replied that they were traveling for the weekend, but they would update the app on Monday. And they apologized for it not working. Something that Apple might want to consider.
 


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:
Tyshawn Cormier said:
P.S.: I haven't tried the hack myself, so all caveats apply.
 


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.
I followed most of that down to where it involved Xcode. What I thought most interesting was that both Aperture and iPhoto were 64-bit, "but with some internal components that are still 32-bit."

As "hack" author Tyshawn Gormier 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.)

Gormier mentions that, in 2011, Mike Potter enabled Snow Leopard's versions of Preview and Text Edit to work on Lion. I kept those two old versions running using Mike's workaround as long as I could, but Apple eventually made it impossible.
 


What I thought most interesting was that both Aperture and iPhoto were 64-bit, "but with some internal components that are still 32-bit."
The Aperture 3.6 binary itself is a 64-bit app, but the app bundle includes 32-bit binaries. A similar situation holds for iPhoto. For example, here is the output of the file command on the Aperture-related binaries in question:

/Applications/Aperture.app/Contents/MacOS/Aperture: Mach-O 64-bit executable x86_64

/Applications/Aperture.app/Contents/Frameworks/iLifeSlideshow.framework/Versions/A/XPCServices/com.apple.iLifeSlideshow.MRXPCMovieServer.xpc/Contents/MacOS/com.apple.iLifeSlideshow.MRXPCMovieServer: Mach-O executable i386

/Applications/Aperture.app/Contents/Frameworks/iLifeSlideshow.framework/Versions/A/XPCServices/com.apple.iLifeSlideshow.MEXPC32ExporterHelper.xpc/Contents/MacOS/com.apple.iLifeSlideshow.MEXPC32ExporterHelper: Mach-O executable i386

/Applications/Aperture.app/Contents/XPCServices/com.apple.PhotoApps.AVCHDConverter.xpc/Contents/MacOS/com.apple.PhotoApps.AVCHDConverter: Mach-O executable i386
 


I know there are lots of good options out there for image editing - On1, Luminar, etc. My question really pertains more specifically to DAM [Digital Asset Management] usage. I have all my digital images/video in a managed Aperture library, but macOS 10.15 will officially break it, so I have got to either a) not upgrade or b) find a good DAM alternative.

I have the Nik suite of plugins and generally don't do any major heavy lifting with image editing. My wishlist is topped with finding another app that could either use or import my existing Aperture library. I don't mind exporting it first into a referenced file structure, if needed, but was curious if there was anything that could just use it "as is" (other than Apple's Photos app - haven't been overwhelmed with it).

So, that's pretty much it, I need a good DAM to replace Aperture. Thoughts? The idea of the transition makes me a bit queasy... but I suppose this is a good time to cull/keyword my library... sigh....
One option would be to use my NeoFinder software, which has been 64-bit since 2013, and handles a very wide range of file formats.
 


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....
Blimey. I wish I'd seen this earlier. I'm 70% of the way through importing over 1 TB of Aperture libraries (I organised them per year) into Lightroom Classic on my 2018 Mac Mini (running Mojave) so I'll be ready to upgrade it to Catalina at some point. (All the images/metadata are stored on an external Thunderbolt 3 LaCie array, so an upgrade wouldn't pose any risk to them.)

I have a sacrificial 2012 MacBook Pro running Catalina, so I might give this hack a try.
 


I followed most of that down to where it involved Xcode. What I thought most interesting was that both Aperture and iPhoto were 64-bit, "but with some internal components that are still 32-bit."
As "hack" author Tyshawn Gormier 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.)
Gormier mentions that, in 2011, Mike Potter enabled Snow Leopard's versions of Preview and Text Edit to work on Lion. I kept those two old versions running using Mike's workaround as long as I could, but Apple eventually made it impossible.
I have been using Aperture for almost 10 years (and 500 GB of photos) and was going to stay on Mojave for as long as I could to postpone the inevitably painful migration to Something Else. This development is very exciting! I personally would pay $100 for a utility that was released and kept up to date with system releases which could perform all of these steps. Aperture and my 2010 Mac Pro will soldier onward to Catalina!
 


One option would be to use my NeoFinder software, which has been 64-bit since 2013, and handles a very wide range of file formats.
Norbert, once one exports from Aperture with all the user metadata, how does NeoFinder allow a user to search and navigate based on that? I'm happy to look at a video if you have one.
 


Just an FYI: Skylum's Luminar 4 is scheduled for a November 18 release, with those who pre-ordered due to get notification a few days beforehand.
 


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.
What we need is someone with these sleuthing and hacking skills to figure out how to get Aperture to run in a virtual environment. Getting it to run in Catalina is a temporary solution that may only last until the next dot release of macOS. Getting it to run in a virtual environment would allow me to totally control (ie, never update) the OS it's running in while allowing the rest of my system to move forward, for better or worse, with Apple's parade of system updates.

Has anyone determined if this is feasible, or is the dependency too intertwined with the GPU access within virtual environments, which is the issue per my very limited understanding?
 


What we need is someone with these sleuthing and hacking skills to figure out how to get Aperture to run in a virtual environment. Getting it to run in Catalina is a temporary solution that may only last until the next dot release of macOS. Getting it to run in a virtual environment would allow me to totally control (ie, never update) the OS it's running in while allowing the rest of my system to move forward, for better or worse, with Apple's parade of system updates. Has anyone determined if this is feasible, or is the dependency too intertwined with the GPU access within virtual environments, which is the issue per my very limited understanding?
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.
 



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 receive the following Aperture error message when I attempt to open the Aperture photos library: "Unable to write to library 'Aperture Library 2"....
Les, can you create an Aperture Library in your VM?
 


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

Latest posts