The mess that is Photos on iOS and OSX

On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 16:10:32 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Sandman
wrote:

Sandman:
Now we have a new service called "iCloud Photos", still in
beta. If you enable it on your iOS device, it will remove all
synced photos from iTunes since for unknown reasons these
cannot co-exist.

nospam:
the reasons are known and well understood by those who aren't
trolling.

Rikishi42:
Maybe, but he's talking to you now.

i know the reasons why they can't coexist.

Which is?

cloudkit.

see other post for more details.

Aah yes.

A message reference would have been helpful.

See Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 16:10:29 -0500

"nevertheless, for those that live in a cave, apple is switching to
cloudkit, which is entirely new and incompatible with what came
before. you get one or the other.

what came before, core data and icloud, was fundamentally broken.
apple fixed a lot of the issues but realized it could never work
properly so they said **** it and started over.

the two are not compatible. in other words, it's either/or."
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

i know the reasons why they can't coexist.

Which is?

cloudkit.

see other post for more details.

Aah yes.

A message reference would have been helpful.

the message reference didn't exist when it was posted.

On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 23:45:08 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

i know the reasons why they can't coexist.

Which is?

cloudkit.

see other post for more details.

Aah yes.

A message reference would have been helpful.

the message reference didn't exist when it was posted.

The message to which you referred by writing "see other post for more
details" already existed and that is the message already identified by
the message ID which I see you have unhelpfully snipped.

For the benefit of others, the missing text reads:

See Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 16:10:29 -0500

"nevertheless, for those that live in a cave, apple is switching to
cloudkit, which is entirely new and incompatible with what came
before. you get one or the other.

what came before, core data and icloud, was fundamentally broken.
apple fixed a lot of the issues but realized it could never work
properly so they said **** it and started over.

the two are not compatible. in other words, it's either/or."

Actually, seeing the "other post for more details" is not realy
helpful as the "other post" merely uses different words to say "they
can't coexist". There is no hint as to an explanation why this should
be the case. Are you able to explain what it is about the situation
which caused you to write, first, "it's either/or" and then "they
can't coexist"?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

i know the reasons why they can't coexist.

Which is?

cloudkit.

see other post for more details.

Aah yes.

A message reference would have been helpful.

the message reference didn't exist when it was posted.

The message to which you referred by writing "see other post for more
details" already existed and that is the message already identified by
the message ID which I see you have unhelpfully snipped.

no it didn't.

both messages were written locally and posted as a batch at the same
time, which means there was no message id when i wrote them or when
they were posted.

Actually, seeing the "other post for more details" is not realy
helpful as the "other post" merely uses different words to say "they
can't coexist".

it's helpful because there's no point in writing the same thing again.

since both were posted at the same time, someone reading the thread
will have either seen the lengthy explanation moments before or they
will realize a more detailed answer is forthcoming in a post they're
about to read.

in other words, a message id is completely unnecessary. you're arguing
just to argue again.

There is no hint as to an explanation why this should
be the case. Are you able to explain what it is about the situation
which caused you to write, first, "it's either/or" and then "they
can't coexist"?

more bull****. not only did i explain why but you even *quoted* it your
reply, relocated from above to he

what came before, core data and icloud, was fundamentally broken.
apple fixed a lot of the issues but realized it could never work
properly so they said **** it and started over.

On 12/6/2014 5:25 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 23:45:08 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

i know the reasons why they can't coexist.

Which is?

cloudkit.

see other post for more details.

Aah yes.

A message reference would have been helpful.

the message reference didn't exist when it was posted.

The message to which you referred by writing "see other post for more
details" already existed and that is the message already identified by
the message ID which I see you have unhelpfully snipped.

For the benefit of others, the missing text reads:

See Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 16:10:29 -0500

"nevertheless, for those that live in a cave, apple is switching to
cloudkit, which is entirely new and incompatible with what came
before. you get one or the other.

what came before, core data and icloud, was fundamentally broken.
apple fixed a lot of the issues but realized it could never work
properly so they said **** it and started over.

the two are not compatible. in other words, it's either/or."

Actually, seeing the "other post for more details" is not realy
helpful as the "other post" merely uses different words to say "they
can't coexist". There is no hint as to an explanation why this should
be the case. Are you able to explain what it is about the situation
which caused you to write, first, "it's either/or" and then "they
can't coexist"?


Why do you even bother. Is it that important?

--
PeterN

On Sat, 06 Dec 2014 17:52:29 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

i know the reasons why they can't coexist.

Which is?

cloudkit.

see other post for more details.

Aah yes.

A message reference would have been helpful.

the message reference didn't exist when it was posted.

The message to which you referred by writing "see other post for more
details" already existed and that is the message already identified by
the message ID which I see you have unhelpfully snipped.

no it didn't.

both messages were written locally and posted as a batch at the same
time, which means there was no message id when i wrote them or when
they were posted.

OK. I see that. There are three minutes separating the two messages. I
would have thought they were dated and time stamped when they were
posted, not when you put finger to key board.

Actually, seeing the "other post for more details" is not realy
helpful as the "other post" merely uses different words to say "they
can't coexist".

it's helpful because there's no point in writing the same thing again.

Yet you did. But neither is an explanation. It's mere a statement of
fact.

since both were posted at the same time, someone reading the thread
will have either seen the lengthy explanation moments before or they
will realize a more detailed answer is forthcoming in a post they're
about to read.

No explanation.

in other words, a message id is completely unnecessary. you're arguing
just to argue again.

Nope. I'm trying to find out *why* the two won't work together.

There is no hint as to an explanation why this should
be the case. Are you able to explain what it is about the situation
which caused you to write, first, "it's either/or" and then "they
can't coexist"?

more bull****. not only did i explain why but you even *quoted* it your
reply, relocated from above to he

what came before, core data and icloud, was fundamentally broken.
apple fixed a lot of the issues but realized it could never work
properly so they said **** it and started over.

That's not an explanation of why. In what way was core data and icloud
fundamentally broken?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2014-12-06 23:21:34 +0000, PeterN said:

Why do you even bother. Is it that important?

Nope, it is not important at all.

Apple is going to continue on its path, and all who choose to follow
will adopt whatever shows up in OSX, iOS, and iCloud. Apple will tout
it as the greatest thing since dumping iPhoto & Aperture, Apple
devotees will praise it blindly, and the anti-Apple faction will
condemn it. The same will apply to Adobe software. That is the way of
the World.

That said, this Apple user will continue to use PS + LR in my efforts
to make my images tolerably viewable.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 12/6/2014 7:10 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-12-06 23:21:34 +0000, PeterN said:

Why do you even bother. Is it that important?

Nope, it is not important at all.

Apple is going to continue on its path, and all who choose to follow
will adopt whatever shows up in OSX, iOS, and iCloud. Apple will tout it
as the greatest thing since dumping iPhoto & Aperture, Apple devotees
will praise it blindly, and the anti-Apple faction will condemn it. The
same will apply to Adobe software. That is the way of the World.

That said, this Apple user will continue to use PS + LR in my efforts to
make my images tolerably viewable.



This PC user will continue to use PS, and am still learning LR.

BTW have you tried Topaz Impressions? I have stopped using Painter.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/C26-peternewm-C1-Approaching%20Strom.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/C26-peternewm-C1-Montauk%20Sunset.jpg

As usual constructive comments welcome.


--
PeterN

On Sat, 6 Dec 2014 16:10:14 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2014-12-06 23:21:34 +0000, PeterN said:

Why do you even bother. Is it that important?

Nope, it is not important at all.

It is sufficiently important to me to cause me to enquire.

Apple is going to continue on its path, and all who choose to follow
will adopt whatever shows up in OSX, iOS, and iCloud. Apple will tout
it as the greatest thing since dumping iPhoto & Aperture, Apple
devotees will praise it blindly, and the anti-Apple faction will
condemn it. The same will apply to Adobe software. That is the way of
the World.

That said, this Apple user will continue to use PS + LR in my efforts
to make my images tolerably viewable.

My enquiry has almost nothing to do with anyone's ongoing use of LR or
PS.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2014-12-07 00:23:43 +0000, PeterN said:

On 12/6/2014 7:10 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-12-06 23:21:34 +0000, PeterN said:

Why do you even bother. Is it that important?

Nope, it is not important at all.

Apple is going to continue on its path, and all who choose to follow
will adopt whatever shows up in OSX, iOS, and iCloud. Apple will tout it
as the greatest thing since dumping iPhoto & Aperture, Apple devotees
will praise it blindly, and the anti-Apple faction will condemn it. The
same will apply to Adobe software. That is the way of the World.

That said, this Apple user will continue to use PS + LR in my efforts to
make my images tolerably viewable.



This PC user will continue to use PS, and am still learning LR.

Keep going.
I suggest that you use it as a portal to PS and the other plug-ins such
as the NIK & OnOne stuff. If you import & retain your original NEFs, or
convert to DNG, use the LR image editing tools instead of ACR. Just
remember you can go to PS whenever you choose, and the Camera RAW
filter is still available in PS.
The working copy with layers can be saved back to LR and reopened in PS
from LR whenever you choose. Then from LR you can export as a JPEG for
sharing without having a JPEG taking up space in LR.

I am taking advantage of my 20GB of Creative Cloud storage fpr having
collections on my desktop and in LR Mobile (Free) on both my iPhone &
iPad. Then as you have seen, I can share any of those collections I
choose to by providing the Adobe CC link.

When I share via Dropbox, I have a preset in the LR Export dialog,
where I resize (to my parameters), convert to JPEG, and export to an
appropriate Dropbox "Public" folder.
So in the Export dialog I can go to a preset, or I can right click and
by-pass the export dialog by invoking the preset.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_1066.jpg
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_1067.jpg

I find for online viewing limiting the max vertical dimension to 940
pix is optimal.

Which lets me share this JPEG, without having a JPEG in LR.
https://db.tt/cRVwu23V

BTW have you tried Topaz Impressions? I have stopped using Painter.

Nope. That isn't really my sort of thing. ;-)
I am not a great fan of the some of the Topaz stuff, and I have more
than enough to work with with NIK, OnOne, and my current tinkering with
the Mac only Intensify Pro & Tonality Pro.
http://macphun.com/getstarted/intensify/features?_ga=1.21482427.1226465012.1412871464
http://macphun.com/getstarted/tonality?_ga=1.130468367.1226465012.1412871464

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/C26-peternewm-C1-Approaching%20Strom.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/C26-peternewm-C1-Montauk%20Sunset.jpg

As

usual constructive comments welcome.

As I said, not really my sort of thing, but OK for what it is.


--
Regards,

Savageduck