# Post Apple Photos workflow...



## Moscool (Jun 8, 2003)

So Apple Photos has been around for a few months now and it ticks quite a few boxes - but not all of them. In the past, when most of my pictures came from my DSLR, I had no (conceptual) problem loading my cards onto Lightroom, doing my edits (with or without Photoshop) and exporting my 'keepers' to iPhoto on my Mac which would then synch to other devices.

A few things have changed however:

- I use my iPhone 6 a lot for general photography. My DSLR is now only for 'special projects'
- iCloud Photos has been launched although it's not clear where the hi res originals sit
- The Photos editing tools have improved, although again it's not clear if this is non destructive editing or the old style iPhoto multiple (large) files

Lightroom and photoshop are obviously better editors, organisers and metadata editors than Photos but the effort is getting greater...

Anybody has modernised their workflow recently in light of the changes above?

Ta v much


----------



## slipstream (May 9, 2011)

I'm like you: using iPhone mostly now. Love Photos app. I use the managed not reference library (imported from Aperture). My understanding is that hi res sit in the cloud on iCloud Photo Library. I set up device preferences so hi res also sit on my iMac and my MacBook, and low res sit on my iPhone and iPad to save space on them. I do local backups from my iMac. I have got used to the default collections approach in Photos, does not take me long to find photos from the past by scrolling. I save copies of certain photos to personal or shared albums. I find it easy to upload photos from my Nikon's SD card, but don't use the Nikon often. I also find it easy to export copies to desktop, drag them into Affinity Photo or Affinity Designer for complex editing if I need more than the editing available in Photos, and then drag the modified versions back into Photos when done.


----------



## Moscool (Jun 8, 2003)

Yes, I played with Photos a bit more at the weekend. Apple is really good at p* people off by taking a perfectly good app and adding moronic features while removing many useful ones!

I'm going to have a look at Lightroom CC desktop/iPad integration before I go one way or the other...


----------



## Moscool (Jun 8, 2003)

Update: I have starting playing with CC and the mobile app on my iPad.

Classic situation where each ecosystem refuses to talk to the other except for imports... The iPad version of LR is actually quite basic. In particular you can't touch Keywording which is a serious limitation. The bottom line seems to be that I should stick to Photos for snaps and LR for 'projects' with a workflow back to Photos as my 'show' library - with or without iCloud.

I may yet subscribe to Lightroom CC for its features more than anything else. Also, playing with the iPhone's pictures in Lightroom clearly highlighted the limitations of jpg and a small sensor... So I should get my 'proper' camera out more often


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

The problem is almost always with the sensor size. 

We forget that the sensors are a good deal smaller than the neg size on a Kodak disk camera. The disk cameras could not even produce an acceptable 4x5 inch print, yet iPhones, iPads and the run of the mill point and shoot, can and do produce good to excellent uncropped 8x10s and with some subjects will even manage an 11x14. 

That said cameras with larger sensors are well worth the investment if image crispness or bigger enlargements are worth the extra $s, weight and size.

If I see a true 4x5 Graflok digital back/display hit the market at under $5000, my old Linhof may yet come out of retirement.


----------



## Moscool (Jun 8, 2003)

I'm not sure how comparing a film and a sensor surface with a very different density and functionality make sense but I get your point! The iPhone's weaknesses are:

- Any form of zooming results in really soft pictures (usually small sensors create more grainy pictures that can be improved more easily)
- The jpgs do not respond well to any treatment beyond opening the blacks or whites

Having said that, the camera is remarkable compared to what was available a couple of years ago; and stills weaknesses are not a problem for video.

The future is probably in full frame non SLRs: great sensors, light weight and smaller lenses.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Moscool said:


> I'm not sure how comparing a film and a sensor surface with a very different density and functionality make sense but I get your point! The iPhone's weaknesses are:
> 
> - Any form of zooming results in really soft pictures (usually small sensors create more grainy pictures that can be improved more easily)
> - The jpgs do not respond well to any treatment beyond opening the blacks or whites
> ...


There are two limiting factors, the capture ability of the sensor or film surface and the resolving power of the lens. Small sensor cameras are testing both limits. Many of them actually blur the image somewhat to try to hide noise in the blue sky portion of images. Sometimes this can be over-ridden in the controls, otherwise the blurring can often be over come with a slight application of a sharpening filter.

Don't own an iPhone so I suspect the issue with zoom shots is that it using a digital zoom (cropping) as opposed to an optical zoom (Barlow lens) as may be found on better P&S camera.


----------



## Moscool (Jun 8, 2003)

You're right. IMO zooming +lowlight is the worst combination (which shooters will often do at a party for example). I have just played with adjustments in Photos to try & salvage something from it and it is beyond repair. By comparison a P&S will simply generate noise and a marginal amount of blur which can be improved noticeably in post. Not on the iPhone though.


----------

