You are here

6 posts / 0 new
Last post
Do Photo extensions like MacPhun bring it closer to Apeture-like controls? #1
GD Rothenberg's picture
by GD Rothenberg
December 2, 2015 - 9:01pm

As a long time Aperture user I, like most of us, am frustrated by Apple’s decision to allow the program to die a slow death.  I’ve looked at Lightroom and Capture One and am not excited by them.  Photos for OS X looks OK but very limiting.  However,  that was before some third party extensions by MacPhun and others hit the street.  Have they brought Photos closer to an Aperture level?  I see, for example, that some offer Curves, tonality adjustments, and some localized controls. Perhaps I don’t need to leave the comfortable Apple eco-system.  Any thoughts?

GD Rothenberg

Colin's picture
by Colin
December 4, 2015 - 8:39pm

Not really. One of he problems, for instance, is that the Macphun apps can open, say, a raw or tiff file from Photos but once edited can only return a jpeg to Photos. We are informed by Macphun that this is an Apple limitation. There are other things I personally do not like and imo Photos has a long way to go yet.

bjurasz's picture
by bjurasz
December 8, 2015 - 4:08pm

I agree Colin, Photos has a LONG way to go to replace Aperture.  I’m using Photos now only for family photos, because for simplicity it is easier and it has a better wife-approval-factor than Aperture did.  But for any paying work I do (which is quite limited anymore) I always go back to Aperture.  Photos is just too lightweight.

Bill Jurasz
Austin Texas

Colin's picture
by Colin
December 8, 2015 - 5:58pm

It is a missed opportunity, Bill. Photos did not have to be an Aperture or LR it just had to a be a nice DAM with editing capabilities and the ability to hand off to a real editor (PS or one of the many good clones) and to some filters like Topaz and Macphun (although not so sure about the latter now, as a company). By handing off I mean with the ability to accept back a decent file type - tiff and why not PSD and the like?

Angus Gibbins's picture
by Angus Gibbins
March 6, 2016 - 8:19am

I know this topics a little old but I only just discovered this forum and I have to agree. Missed opportunity and Apple have surely lost significant marketshare as photographers move to Lightroom. 

I’ve tried Lightroom about a dozen times and I just can’t do it. Lightroom feels like it needs to be torn down and rewritten from the ground up (similar to how Apple Logic did up until version 10). With Lightroom I feel like I’m working with arbitrary files but with Photos I feel like I’m working directly with photos. 

For now I’ve settled with Photos and extensions for DxO Optics Pro and AuroraHDR Pro. The AuroraHDR Extension is obviously useless for processing bracketed images in Photos (without exporting the originals first) but I’ve found its great for adjustments, and gives me what I want most on Photos, which is a tone curve adjustment. 

Krakatoa Sundra's picture
by Krakatoa Sundra
March 26, 2016 - 5:38am

dam wise, no. editing wise, it's pretty good. in many ways, the editing is better. i mainly use the Affinity Photo extension. i can do spot editing, remove objects, use liquidfy tool. The liquidfy tool is top notch and includes freeze and thaw functions. i also have MacPhun's Noiseless, Intensify, and Tonality. Affinity Photo is a layer based rastor editor like Photoshop CC. I could rastor illustrations in it like PS CC. Affinity Photo offers 6 extensions. PS CC does not.

Robert Ke
twitter: rke21

also at:
instagram: rke21
facebook: outdoorphotographynow

You may login with either your assigned username or your e-mail address.
Passwords are case-sensitive - Forgot your password?