A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The mess that is Photos on iOS and OSX



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old December 8th 14, 09:46 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default The mess that is Photos on iOS and OSX

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

which means the posts will be within a second or two of each other, at
the most.


Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 16:10:29 -0500
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 16:10:32 -0500

4 seconds. Not 4 minutes as I orginally wrote.


not only do you fail at telling time but you fail at math.
32-29 = 3 seconds.

Citing a message ID is arguing?


no.

bitching that it wasn't included is.


That wasn't bitching. I was pointing out that just saying "other
message" is not very helpful. What other message?


the one that is posted within 3 seconds of the one you're currently
reading. half the time you would have seen it already and the other
half the time it would be the one you saw in the list of new posts and
are about to read.

common sense.
  #52  
Old December 8th 14, 09:46 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default The mess that is Photos on iOS and OSX

In article , Sandman
wrote:

Nothing to do with my news server. The time stamp is applied
at your end.

nospam:
it's not at my end.

both messages were posted within a fraction of a second of each
other.

Sandman:
Your news client sets the date, and apparently it set the date to
the time of writing it, not the time of pushing it to the server.
So three minutes apart is the time it took you to write the first
and start the second.


interesting theory, but it's completely wrong.


That's why it's a theory.


it's wrong from the start and makes no sense anyway. the time stamp is
a function of when the post is actually posted. eric even posted the
relevant reference for how it works.

even though i know you're full of ****


Nothing I wrote above was "****", it was all 100% true, and a theory to
explain the different timestamps.


it's 100% false.

i tested it anyway. i made several posts to other threads, written
several over an hour apart.


the time stamps showed the time the post was actually posted to the
newsserver, not the time the post was begun or completed at my end.


Curious then that the two earlier posts had time stamps three minutes
apart.


they weren't. he even posted the time stamps.

he, like you, cannot tell time.

after posting the batch, all of the posts were at the most, within a
couple of seconds of each other, confirmed on two different servers.


Neat. And using those same servers, what were the timestamps of those two
earlier posts you made - those that show up three minutes apart on my (and
Eric's) server?


bull**** they do.

the two posts were made within 3 *seconds* (not minutes) of each other,
on 12/5/14 at 21:10 gmt/4:10 pm est/1:10 pm pst.

you and eric can't tell time.

Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: The mess that is Photos on iOS and OSX
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 16:10:32 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 23
Message-ID:

Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: The mess that is Photos on iOS and OSX
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 16:10:29 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 134
Message-ID:


as i said, the problem is not at my end.


It isn't a problem at all, at anyone's end. But your posts were timestamped
three minutes apart.


no they weren't. see above.

not that the time stamps have *any* relevance to the topic. it's
nothing more than another ridiculous diversion from eric.


That I agree with. I was trying to give a theory to explain the disrepancy
of your timestamps, which in fact was a very valid theory.


it's completely bogus and doesn't even pass the sniff test.

Still waiting for more info - like the timestamps you see on the posts on
those two test servers you used above, but for those initial two posts.


you could check the timestamps yourself, however, they're listed above.

you're full of ****.
  #53  
Old December 8th 14, 10:22 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default The mess that is Photos on iOS and OSX

On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 15:46:58 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

which means the posts will be within a second or two of each other, at
the most.


Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 16:10:29 -0500
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 16:10:32 -0500

4 seconds. Not 4 minutes as I orginally wrote.


not only do you fail at telling time but you fail at math.
32-29 = 3 seconds.

Citing a message ID is arguing?

no.

bitching that it wasn't included is.


That wasn't bitching. I was pointing out that just saying "other
message" is not very helpful. What other message?


the one that is posted within 3 seconds of the one you're currently
reading. half the time you would have seen it already and the other
half the time it would be the one you saw in the list of new posts and
are about to read.

common sense.


It wasn't on my screen at that stage: I hadn't scrolled down to it.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #54  
Old December 8th 14, 10:51 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default The mess that is Photos on iOS and OSX

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Citing a message ID is arguing?

no.

bitching that it wasn't included is.

That wasn't bitching. I was pointing out that just saying "other
message" is not very helpful. What other message?


the one that is posted within 3 seconds of the one you're currently
reading. half the time you would have seen it already and the other
half the time it would be the one you saw in the list of new posts and
are about to read.

common sense.


It wasn't on my screen at that stage: I hadn't scrolled down to it.


yes it was.
  #55  
Old December 9th 14, 12:36 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default The mess that is Photos on iOS and OSX

On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 16:51:36 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Citing a message ID is arguing?

no.

bitching that it wasn't included is.

That wasn't bitching. I was pointing out that just saying "other
message" is not very helpful. What other message?

the one that is posted within 3 seconds of the one you're currently
reading. half the time you would have seen it already and the other
half the time it would be the one you saw in the list of new posts and
are about to read.

common sense.


It wasn't on my screen at that stage: I hadn't scrolled down to it.


yes it was.


This is getting silly.

You have absolutely no idea of what I have on my screen.

I'm stopping at this point.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #56  
Old December 9th 14, 07:47 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default The mess that is Photos on iOS and OSX

In article , Sandman
wrote:


for some people the transition will be a huge pain in the ass and
for others there will be absolutely no hassle whatsoever. most
people fall in the middle somewhere.


Whether or not it will be a hassle or problem for anyone hasn't been
mentioned by me. I am stating the current state of the transition, and it
applies to everyone. No one can use iCloud Photos on the Mac, and no one
can use iCloud Photos on iOS without removing the iTunes-synced photos. The
transition applies equallly to everyone. Whether or not it's a problem or
how much you are affected by it is a totally seperate question which I
haven't talked about.


there will be a transition but it *will* differ for different people.


nospam:
lightroom now supports directly importing aperture libraries,
making it easier than it was several months ago.

Sandman:
Indeed. Not that it was all that hard before.


it's a lot more straightforward than it was before since it's now a
feature in lightroom, whereas before it was a manual process.


It was a three-step manual process. I don't know how the built in process
works so I can't compare.


in other words, you're talking out your ass.

nospam:
so no, the transition is without question, not the same for
everyone. not even close to similar, let alone the same.

Sandman:
It's identical. Whether or not it is a problem for many or most,
or whether or not they are affected by it is another question all
together.


then it's not identical.


It is. If you change the speed limit of a road from 55 to 70, it's equal to
everyone driving on that road, whether or not you drive your car at that
speed or not. You can drive on that road at 45 before and after the
transition and you will not be affected by the transition/change, but it is
equal to you as anyone else.


that's a bogus analogy, but nevertheless, for the drivers who were
already going 70 there is no difference, other than they no longer need
to worry about a speed trap. for those who go 80+, they'll still need
to look for cops but the price of the ticket will likely be lower and
for those still driving 55, they're now a danger to everyone else.

identical means the same. if it varies for different people, then it
cannot be identical.


"Identical" is one word, the question is *what* is identical, not just
"identical". Since the correct initial claim is:

"The transition is the same for everyone"

One can note that it doesn't say that the transition *affects* everyone the
same, but it applies equally to everyone. I.e. you're nitpicking.


it's not nitpicking at all, and not everyone will have a transition,
namely those who don't use icloud at all.

nospam:
not only that and as i've said it before, making any decision
now is premature. the wisest thing to do is wait until photos
ships and see whether it fits one's needs and at *that* point,
decide what to do.

Sandman:
Which is exactly what I am doing.


if you've switched to lightroom already, you've made your decision.


As I've said, I'm using both.


which means you have not decided yet.

doing so at this point is not a good idea.


How do you know? What little we know of Photos for OSX isn't very
promising.


bull****. what's known about photos is *very* promising.

non-destructive plug-ins is *extremely* powerful.


nospam:
adobe knows that so they're desperately trying to grab as many
users as they can *before* photos comes out, because once those
users switch to lightroom they won't switch back to photos.

Sandman:
Sure they could. I am currently using both Lightroom and Aperture
from the same base photos, so if Photos turns out to be great,
switching to it would be as easy as if I had never used Lightroom.


they 'could' but they won't.


I'm waiting for a reason for this.


it's common sense.

people have far better things to do than switch back and forth between
asset management apps, especially when the raw conversion is
incompatible.

it's a hassle to switch once and an even bigger hassle to switch
back, plus the conversion is a lossy process so doing it twice is a
really stupid thing to do.


WTF? I am *currently* using *both* Aperture/iPhoto *and* Lightroom for the
same photos. I have the full power of all three applications available for
all my photos. When Photos is released and if it's awesome, switching to it
from my Aperture/iPhoto library will be as easy had I never even installed
Lightroom.


that's a complete mess.

if you're still using aperture, you haven't switched and you're
playing both sides of the fence. you're keeping two separate
databases maintained with two different raw processing engines.


I've never claimed that I've switched. I am using both Aperture and
Lightroom and have their respective databases using the same photos.


yes you did claim that, and juggling 3 different asset management apps
is flipping insane.

not only is that totally insane and just asking for problems, but
you're probably the only person to do that.


What? In what way, prey tell, is that insane? They are completely seperate
and since neither ever touches the original files, it's totally safe.


twice the work for zero benefit.

pick one and stick with it.

those who have switched from aperture to lightroom have abandoned
aperture. switching *back* is not on their radar.


No one need to "switch" anything. Both are applications that have an
internal database that point to files on the HD. Both can also manage those
files internally, but you can elect to have the photos untouched on the HD.
*everything* in Aperture is inside the Aperture library, except the
original photos - same with Lightroom.


they definitely have to switch since the two apps use separate
databases and separate raw conversion engines. you can't make a change
in aperture and then switch to lightroom to do something else.

using two asset management apps is crazy!

adobe knows this and is desperately trying to get people to switch
to lightroom before that window of opportunity closes.


Not sure how this supposed "desperation" is manifasting itself. All I've
seen is them posting about an upcoming migration tool for Aperture users
when Aperture was EOL:ed, and then releasing it. That's a nice service for
stranded Aperture users (or rather, those that feel stranded), and hardly
"desperate".


that's part of their desperation. they know quite well that the moment
photos comes out, unless it's pure garbage (which is not likely), users
will switch use photos because it's free.

the sooner they can get people to switch to lightroom, the fewer that
will switch *back* to photos even though it's free.

it's common sense.


nospam:
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.

Sandman:
This is of course false. iOS Photos has the ability to see albums
synced from iTunes and albums synced from iCloud Photos. "You get
one or the other" isn't a reason, it's an empty claim.


nothing about it is false.
http://www.imore.com/troubleshoot-ic...c-images-from-
iphoto


Everything about it is false. The link above explains the current state of
affairs, just like I did in my OP. But, it doesn't give any reason as to
*WHY*, which is exactly what I said. The link above agrees with everything
I said.


no it doesn't. it says you have to pick one or the other, which is the
case.

first of all, this isn't about ios photos, it's about mac photos,
which is not available yet.


No, this is about iOS Photos, since that's what the OP was about. You're
just confused.


then why do you keep mentioning aperture and lightroom?

obviously it's about mac photos, not ios photos.

second, it's about the new cloudkit.


No, it isn't. It may be what you THINK it is about, but it isn't. CloudKit
is an API to transfer data from the cloud, that's all.


yep, and it works much better than what came before. it's also not
compatible with what came before.

third, an app can continue to use the old coredata/icloud model if
it wants, but it's incompatible with using cloudkit.


iOS Photos does *NOT* use Core Data + iCloud, so this is an irrelevant
point.


it uses core data, as does mac iphoto and aperture.

Enabling iCloud for Core Data stores *everything* in Core Data in iCloud.


not necessarily. you have obviously never written an app that uses
them. i have.

Sandman:
Cloudkit does NOT store data on your device, it's a transfer
protocol using API's to read data from the Cloud. Cloudkit doesn't
sync anything, you would still use Core Data to store local copies
of photos.


so what? that doesn't change anything i said.


It does, since any developer can use CloudKit *and* Core Data + iCloud.
They are not exclusive funcitonalities and it's not "one or the other".


they 'could' but that would be a *total* waste of time and effort.

developers could also support ios 5 if they wanted to, but that too is
a total waste of time and effort.

the reality, as has been demonstrated by just about every single app
since last fall, is that users need to switch from the old syncing to
the new syncing.

that poses a serious problem for those who have devices running
10.10/ios 8 *and* 10.9 or earlier/ios 7 or earlier.



photos on ios is not the issue and has little to do with photos on
the mac other than the name.


Sigh. Photos on iOS *IS* the issue. Here is the video again and see the
issue first hand:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSyBkDF7pJc

That's the current mess you're stuck with unless you turn on iCloud Photos,
which you *CAN NOT DO* if you wish to have photos from your Mac (or PC) on
your iOS device.


that video confirms exactly what i said. it's one or the other.


photos on mac is not done. go call apple and help them finish it and
have it work the way you want it to work if you think you know
better.


I would be more interested in fixing iOS Photos to work neatly during this
transitional period.


why do you think it's called a transitional period?

not only that, but photos on ios is likely to be revised to work
with photos on mac.


Maybe, but it would be better to be revised to work nicely during the
period up until Photos for the Mac is released.


there's no point in revising something that's a dead end.

nospam:
photos will be done when it's done, but probably released before
it's truly done.

Sandman:
And probably will be less than iPhoto functionality-wise.


another completely bogus assumption.


Assumption, yes. Bogus no. Based on what we know. You may not have the same
assumption, which is fine, but that's my assumption and I have posted many
times about why this is a perfectly valid assumption.


your assumption is based on your own prejudices against iphoto. you are
assuming that photos will be *less* than iphoto. that is completely
unfounded.


photos will likely be something in between iphoto and aperture,
eventually growing to do nearly all of what aperture did.


That is indeed a bogus assumption. It isn't based on any information from
Apple at all. That's fine as far as expectations or hopes goes, and I want
to believe you're right, but there is nothing official that says that this
is even remotely going to be true.


one thing you got correct is that it's not based on any information.

if you actually look at apple's developer documentation, you can
clearly see just how powerful photos will be and more importantly, how
capable third party extensions can be when they're non-destructive,
something aperture and lightroom do not support.

that much is clearly obvious from what apple has already shown,
which wasn't all that much anyway.


This is false. What Apple has shown is a mere shadow of iPhoto. What you're
*hoping* for is that when released it will be a lot *more* than what Apple
has shown us. And I am right there hoping with you, I'm just not holding my
breath.


the signs are obvious.

the mere fact that it has non-destructive plug-ins is *huge*.

not even lightroom can offer that (unless it's in the yet unreleased
lightroom 6 which it probably isn't).

all they had last june was a canned demo that showed a couple of
features. there was no actual app at that time. however, there have been
numerous hints along the way.


None of which "hint" at your claim, of course. The closest thing you've
come is that they've said it will support plugins. That's all.


nope. i said non-destructive plug-ins along with other stuff.

Or rather - support it! Show me these "hints" that puts Photos somewhere
between iPhoto and Aperture feature-wise.


start he
http://www.apple.com/

after that, read the various tech journalist commentaries on photos and
what apple is doing.

the information is out there for those who want to see it.
  #57  
Old December 9th 14, 07:47 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default The mess that is Photos on iOS and OSX

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Citing a message ID is arguing?

no.

bitching that it wasn't included is.

That wasn't bitching. I was pointing out that just saying "other
message" is not very helpful. What other message?

the one that is posted within 3 seconds of the one you're currently
reading. half the time you would have seen it already and the other
half the time it would be the one you saw in the list of new posts and
are about to read.

common sense.

It wasn't on my screen at that stage: I hadn't scrolled down to it.


yes it was.


This is getting silly.

You have absolutely no idea of what I have on my screen.


i have a very good idea of what's on your screen because i've used a
variety of newsreaders over the years.

newsreaders query the server for new posts so at a minimum, you would
have seen the number of unread articles since your last visit, which
would have been at least 2 for this thread.

since your reply was a couple of hours after mine, there were likely
more than just 2 posts in the group.

in other words, the fact that there were additional posts to read was
on your screen.

I'm stopping at this point.


good idea.
  #58  
Old December 10th 14, 11:12 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default The mess that is Photos on iOS and OSX

In article , nospam wrote:

nospam:
for some people the transition will be a huge pain in the ass
and for others there will be absolutely no hassle whatsoever.
most people fall in the middle somewhere.


Sandman:
Whether or not it will be a hassle or problem for anyone hasn't
been mentioned by me. I am stating the current state of the
transition, and it applies to everyone. No one can use iCloud
Photos on the Mac, and no one can use iCloud Photos on iOS without
removing the iTunes-synced photos. The transition applies equallly
to everyone. Whether or not it's a problem or how much you are
affected by it is a totally seperate question which I haven't
talked about.


there will be a transition but it *will* differ for different
people.


There *is* already a transition, and it applies to everyone equally. No one
is exempt from it.

nospam:
lightroom now supports directly importing aperture
libraries, making it easier than it was several months ago.

Sandman:
Indeed. Not that it was all that hard before.

nospam:
it's a lot more straightforward than it was before since it's
now a feature in lightroom, whereas before it was a manual
process.


Sandman:
It was a three-step manual process. I don't know how the built in
process works so I can't compare.


in other words, you're talking out your ass.


Since I've made no comment about the built in process, your above comment
is as usual disconnected from what was said.

nospam:
so no, the transition is without question, not the
same for everyone. not even close to similar, let alone the
same.

Sandman:
It's identical. Whether or not it is a problem for
many or most, or whether or not they are affected by it is
another question all together.

nospam:
then it's not identical.


Sandman:
It is. If you change the speed limit of a road from 55 to 70, it's
equal to everyone driving on that road, whether or not you drive
your car at that speed or not. You can drive on that road at 45
before and after the transition and you will not be affected by
the transition/change, but it is equal to you as anyone else.


that's a bogus analogy, but nevertheless, for the drivers who were
already going 70 there is no difference, other than they no longer
need to worry about a speed trap. for those who go 80+, they'll
still need to look for cops but the price of the ticket will likely
be lower and for those still driving 55, they're now a danger to
everyone else.


Talk about totally missing the point.

nospam:
identical means the same. if it varies for different people,
then it cannot be identical.


Sandman:
"Identical" is one word, the question is *what* is identical, not
just "identical". Since the correct initial claim is:


"The transition is the same for everyone"


One can note that it doesn't say that the transition *affects*
everyone the same, but it applies equally to everyone. I.e. you're
nitpicking.


it's not nitpicking at all, and not everyone will have a transition,
namely those who don't use icloud at all.


Since no one ever claimed it would be a transition for those that doesn't
use iCloud, you're nitpicking, just like I said. You focus on small details
instead of seeing the big picture in order to create an argument.

nospam:
not only that and as i've said it before, making any
decision now is premature. the wisest thing to do is wait
until photos ships and see whether it fits one's needs and
at *that* point, decide what to do.

Sandman:
Which is exactly what I am doing.

nospam:
if you've switched to lightroom already, you've made your
decision.


Sandman:
As I've said, I'm using both.


which means you have not decided yet.


Since I've never claimed to have decided, what point is it that you're
imagining you're making?

nospam:
doing so at this point is not a good idea.


Sandman:
How do you know? What little we know of Photos for OSX isn't very
promising.


bull****. what's known about photos is *very* promising.


Nope.

non-destructive plug-ins is *extremely* powerful.


They could be, but would be just a tiny funcitonality for Photos.

Plus, Plugins for iOS8 are *not* non-destructive. In fact, Photos for iOS
is "non-destructive" in the same way iPhoto is, meaning that you can do any
edits you want, both built in and using plugins, but you can never remove
only one of them, all you can do is revert to original and start over if
you dislike the end result. I.e. just like how iPhoto is non-destructive.

There's a risk that this is the kind of non-destructive editing you have in
Photos for OSX, which means it sucks big time. In both Aperture and
Lightroom you can make a myriad of changes and use the "checkboxes" to
toggle a specific setting on or off.

nospam:
adobe knows that so they're desperately trying to
grab as many users as they can *before* photos comes out,
because once those users switch to lightroom they won't
switch back to photos.

Sandman:
Sure they could. I am currently using both Lightroom
and Aperture from the same base photos, so if Photos turns out
to be great, switching to it would be as easy as if I had
never used Lightroom.

nospam:
they 'could' but they won't.


Sandman:
I'm waiting for a reason for this.


it's common sense.


people have far better things to do than switch back and forth
between asset management apps, especially when the raw conversion is
incompatible.


The raw conversion has nothing to do with it, it's within the app. They
*can* use multiple asset management, and they *can* thus "switch" back.
100% true statement.

nospam:
it's a hassle to switch once and an even bigger hassle to switch
back, plus the conversion is a lossy process so doing it twice
is a really stupid thing to do.


Sandman:
WTF? I am *currently* using *both* Aperture/iPhoto *and* Lightroom
for the same photos. I have the full power of all three
applications available for all my photos. When Photos is released
and if it's awesome, switching to it from my Aperture/iPhoto
library will be as easy had I never even installed Lightroom.


that's a complete mess.


Incorrect. Works like a charm, i.e. just as it's intended to do.

nospam:
if you're still using aperture, you haven't switched and you're
playing both sides of the fence. you're keeping two separate
databases maintained with two different raw processing engines.


Sandman:
I've never claimed that I've switched. I am using both Aperture
and Lightroom and have their respective databases using the same
photos.


yes you did claim that


Message-ID?

and juggling 3 different asset management apps is flipping insane.


I'm waiting for an actual reason for this. You've yet to come up with a
single reason.

nospam:
not only is that totally insane and just asking for problems,
but you're probably the only person to do that.


Sandman:
What? In what way, prey tell, is that insane? They are completely
seperate and since neither ever touches the original files, it's
totally safe.


twice the work for zero benefit.


Not twice the work, and a lot of benefit.

pick one and stick with it.


Why? I'm still waiting for a reason why it's "insane". You've failed three
times to answer that question now.

nospam:
those who have switched from aperture to lightroom have
abandoned aperture. switching *back* is not on their radar.


Sandman:
No one need to "switch" anything. Both are applications that have
an internal database that point to files on the HD. Both can also
manage those files internally, but you can elect to have the
photos untouched on the HD. *everything* in Aperture is inside the
Aperture library, except the original photos - same with
Lightroom.


they definitely have to switch since the two apps use separate
databases and separate raw conversion engines. you can't make a
change in aperture and then switch to lightroom to do something
else.


Well Duh.

using two asset management apps is crazy!


Incorrect. They have their uses. Lightroom has slightly better noise
reduction, Aperture has Faces support and a better workflow, and a lot
better curves interface (as I posted about earlier).

Photos and movies in Aperture show up in iMovie for use in video projects.

nospam:
adobe knows this and is desperately trying to get people to
switch to lightroom before that window of opportunity closes.


Sandman:
Not sure how this supposed "desperation" is manifasting itself.
All I've seen is them posting about an upcoming migration tool for
Aperture users when Aperture was EOL:ed, and then releasing it.
That's a nice service for stranded Aperture users (or rather,
those that feel stranded), and hardly "desperate".


that's part of their desperation.


You keep repeating that, but you've yet to support it.

they know quite well that the moment photos comes out, unless it's pure
garbage (which is not likely), users will switch use photos because it's
free.


Who told you this? You make an awful lot of unsupported claims. "Common
sense" means you know jack **** about how they are approaching this.

the sooner they can get people to switch to lightroom, the fewer
that will switch *back* to photos even though it's free.


it's common sense.


Ah, jack **** it is then. You know nothing and you keep making claims about
them being desperate. Figures.

nospam:
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.

Sandman:
This is of course false. iOS Photos has the ability
to see albums synced from iTunes and albums synced from iCloud
Photos. "You get one or the other" isn't a reason, it's an
empty claim.

nospam:
nothing about it is false.
http://www.imore.com/troubleshoot-ic...c-images-from-
iphoto


Sandman:
Everything about it is false. The link above explains the current
state of affairs, just like I did in my OP. But, it doesn't give
any reason as to *WHY*, which is exactly what I said. The link
above agrees with everything I said.


no it doesn't. it says you have to pick one or the other, which is
the case.


*I KNOW*, but I was asking for the technical *REASON* for this exclusivity,
which you said you knew, but as it turns out, you know *nothing* about why
this is the case. And as I have explained, there is no actual technical
reason for this exclusivity, and someone at Apple *choose* to make them
exclusive, for unknown reason.

This was you reply to that correct statement:

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

And since you have been 100% unable to explain this reason, by your own
admission, you're trolling.

nospam:
first of all, this isn't about ios photos, it's about mac
photos, which is not available yet.


Sandman:
No, this is about iOS Photos, since that's what the OP was about.
You're just confused.


then why do you keep mentioning aperture and lightroom?


I'm not.

obviously it's about mac photos, not ios photos.


What is "obvious" to you is of no concern to me.

nospam:
second, it's about the new cloudkit.


Sandman:
No, it isn't. It may be what you THINK it is about, but it isn't.
CloudKit is an API to transfer data from the cloud, that's all.


yep, and it works much better than what came before. it's also not
compatible with what came before.


It's not meant to be compatible. It's a totally different thing. It's like
saying that iCloud isn't compatible with Dropbox.

Core Data is an API for storing data locally on the device.
Core Data + iCloud is a function to auto-sync all that data to iCloud
CloudKit is an API to read and write data to iCloud

You *CAN* use Core Data + iCloud and CloudKit at the same time. For
instance, you could use Core Data + iCloud for your documents and CloudKit
to sync settings. They are NOT exclusive technologies.

All of this is, as I've said many times, moot, since iOS Photos *does*
*not* *use* Core Data + iCloud. Using CloudKit in iOS Photos is in no way,
shape or form in conflict with Core Data + iCloud.

nospam:
third, an app can continue to use the old coredata/icloud model
if it wants, but it's incompatible with using cloudkit.


Sandman:
iOS Photos does *NOT* use Core Data + iCloud, so this is an
irrelevant point.


it uses core data, as does mac iphoto and aperture.


Sigh. It *does not* use Core Data *+ ICLOUD*. Every app that writes data to
storage uses Core Data.

Sandman:
Enabling iCloud for Core Data stores *everything* in Core Data in
iCloud.


not necessarily. you have obviously never written an app that uses
them. i have.


https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/General/Conceptual/iCloudDesignGuide/Chapters/DesignForCoreDataIniCloud.html

Sandman:
Cloudkit does NOT store data on your device, it's a
transfer protocol using API's to read data from the Cloud.
Cloudkit doesn't sync anything, you would still use Core Data
to store local copies of photos.

nospam:
so what? that doesn't change anything i said.


Sandman:
It does, since any developer can use CloudKit *and* Core Data +
iCloud. They are not exclusive funcitonalities and it's not "one
or the other".


they 'could' but that would be a *total* waste of time and effort.


Not necessarily. But the point is, you incorrectly stated that it was "one
way or the other", I am correcting that misinformation. I wouldn't
recommend it either.

nospam:
photos on ios is not the issue and has little to do with photos
on the mac other than the name.


Sandman:
Sigh. Photos on iOS *IS* the issue. Here is the video again and
see the issue first hand:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSyBkDF7pJc


That's the current mess you're stuck with unless you turn on
iCloud Photos, which you *CAN NOT DO* if you wish to have photos
from your Mac (or PC) on your iOS device.


that video confirms exactly what i said. it's one or the other.


Dman it, why can't you READ? I *know* it confirms the current state of
affairs, I am the one that made the video.

What it *DOESN'T* do, is explain the *REASON*, which you claimed you knew:

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

That was a response to this:

"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."

Now, some five posts later, you have been 100% unable to explain those
supposed reasons you claimed to know for these not being able to co-exist.
I have explained that they technically *CAN* co-exist and you have had
nothing but hot air in response.

nospam:
not only that, but photos on ios is likely to be revised to work
with photos on mac.


Sandman:
Maybe, but it would be better to be revised to work nicely during
the period up until Photos for the Mac is released.


there's no point in revising something that's a dead end.


iOS Photos isn't a dead end.

nospam:
photos will be done when it's done, but probably
released before it's truly done.

Sandman:
And probably will be less than iPhoto
functionality-wise.

nospam:
another completely bogus assumption.


Sandman:
Assumption, yes. Bogus no. Based on what we know. You may not have
the same assumption, which is fine, but that's my assumption and I
have posted many times about why this is a perfectly valid
assumption.


your assumption is based on your own prejudices against iphoto.


Incorrect, I rather like iPhoto.

you are assuming that photos will be *less* than iphoto. that is
completely unfounded.


It's completely founded.

nospam:
photos will likely be something in between iphoto and aperture,
eventually growing to do nearly all of what aperture did.


Sandman:
That is indeed a bogus assumption. It isn't based on any
information from Apple at all. That's fine as far as expectations
or hopes goes, and I want to believe you're right, but there is
nothing official that says that this is even remotely going to be
true.


one thing you got correct is that it's not based on any information.


I.e. bogus. My assumptions are based on what we *know*, your assumptions
are based on what you *hope*.

if you actually look at apple's developer documentation, you can
clearly see just how powerful photos will be and more importantly,
how capable third party extensions can be when they're
non-destructive, something aperture and lightroom do not support.


See above. "Non-destructive plugins" may not be as amazing as you're hoping
them to be. They're not on iOS.

nospam:
that much is clearly obvious from what apple has already shown,
which wasn't all that much anyway.


Sandman:
This is false. What Apple has shown is a mere shadow of iPhoto.
What you're *hoping* for is that when released it will be a lot
*more* than what Apple has shown us. And I am right there hoping
with you, I'm just not holding my breath.


the signs are obvious.


I'm not interested in your made up "signs". Base your assumptions on facts
rather than wishes.

the mere fact that it has non-destructive plug-ins is *huge*.


It could be, but it's not a given. And having non-destructive plugins as
the only added benefit over what we know would make it rather worthless.

not even lightroom can offer that (unless it's in the yet unreleased
lightroom 6 which it probably isn't).


If the plugin architecture in OSX Photos is anything like the plugin
architecture in iOS, I very much prefer the Aperture/Lightroom way to deal
with plugin edits.

And there is every reason to assume that this will be the case.

Think about it for a second. A non-destructive workflow means that the
application needs to be aware of all the parts of the edit chain.

1. Original
2. Saturation
3. Contrast
4. Third party plugin edit
5. Levels
6. Crop

Now, if this workflow is to be any good, the user needs to remove any step
of that chain at any time - like you can in Lightroom/Aperture. So if you
remove step 2 above, in order for Photos to correctly display the edited
photo, it needs to re-run the third party plugin again using the new
"version" of the photo prior to sending it to the plugin.

At this point, we don't know if this is at all possible. It isn't possible
on iOS, but that could equally be due to UI contraints.

And since step 4, the plugin, could be a super-intensive CPU-hogging
HDR-compressing task, havinng that rerun each and every time you alter the
saturation or contrast would be a UI nightmare.

nospam:
all they had last june was a canned demo that showed a couple of
features. there was no actual app at that time. however, there
have been numerous hints along the way.


Sandman:
None of which "hint" at your claim, of course. The closest thing
you've come is that they've said it will support plugins. That's
all.


nope. i said non-destructive plug-ins along with other stuff.


What "other stuff"? More hot air, perhaps?

Sandman:
Or rather - support it! Show me these "hints" that puts Photos
somewhere between iPhoto and Aperture feature-wise.


start he http://www.apple.com/


You failed, again.

after that, read the various tech journalist commentaries on photos
and what apple is doing.


I am not interested in tech journalists, I want you to support your claim.
You can't, so you should just shut up.

the information is out there for those who want to see it.


But you're just unable to locate it, gotcha.

I see you again snipped my screenshots that support my comparison of Photos
and LR/Aperture/iPhoto


--
Sandman[.net]
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The current Photo mess on iOS and OSX Sandman Digital Photography 12 December 5th 14 03:37 PM
Don't mess with Homeland Security!! Gary Edstrom Digital Photography 2 February 4th 11 06:20 PM
The format mess SimonLW Digital Photography 7 February 10th 07 06:48 PM
Did ACDSee mess me up? Need some help baker1 Digital Photography 10 January 21st 06 05:16 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.