[HN Gopher] A Lament for Aperture
___________________________________________________________________
A Lament for Aperture
Author : firloop
Score : 220 points
Date : 2026-01-21 00:35 UTC (4 days ago)
(HTM) web link (ikennd.ac)
(TXT) w3m dump (ikennd.ac)
| oger wrote:
| Aperture is dearly missed even today. And to make matters worse:
| you cannot even import Aperture libraries into Photos any more.
| Essentially leaving you with picking out the raw images from the
| package. And don't get me started on excellent support for
| tethered shooting in a studio setting. And I could go on and on.
| The only thing I really missed in Aperture was first level
| support for Nik tools which are cool for their adaptive and non
| destructive masks.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| I'm not a photographer so pardon my ignorance: is there any
| reason these old tools can't be used nowadays? Like film
| photography tools haven't fundamentally changed since the
| heyday of film, why can't digital tools be treated the same?
|
| Maybe there is a niche business rescuing old machines &
| software and offering them as a packaged tool - offline, air-
| gapped, with modern bridges where necessary (a Rpi/etc that
| exposes a modern & secure fileshare on one side, and a legacy
| fileshare on the machine side, doing file format conversions if
| necessary).
|
| Since the market for modern _tools_ (as opposed to Liquid
| (gl)ass-infused ad delivery machines) no longer exists, it
| seems like using and taking care of legacy tools is the best we
| 're got.
| dennisnghouse wrote:
| New cameras produce raw files that are not backwards
| compatible with older raw file formats. These raw files are
| key to the highest quality and flexibility in editing.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| Would a file converter not solve this issue? Or do the new
| formats embed extra kinds of data (extra channels, etc)
| that are just impossible to represent in the old formats?
| SanjayMehta wrote:
| There are file converters. At least one big name company
| - probably Adobe - offered a free tool. I stopped using
| Adobe after LR went subscription, so can't remember the
| specifics.
| wvbdmp wrote:
| You can still use Adobe DNG Converter. I use it to
| convert new raw files for Lightroom 4.
| SanjayMehta wrote:
| That's the one, thanks. I have a Mac mini just for
| Aperture and LR5, will see if this can revive that
| system.
|
| Problem is that the latest macs are just so fast that it
| makes it hard to switch back.
| wiredfool wrote:
| Me too. Mini has gone from main dev machine, to backup,
| to kids, and now to Lightroom. It wasn't a slouch BITD, 6
| core and 32G ram. It's a bit slow now, but not that bad
| even on the 4k screen. But it's the best thing I have
| that runs 32 bit MacOs.
| kilpikaarna wrote:
| In theory, although camera raw formats tend to be more or
| less undocumented/proprietary, and the people with the
| resources to create tools that support them tend to be
| commercial enterprises (mainly Adobe and few minor ones)
| that are interested in getting you to use their latest
| thing (not going to work on your decade-old macOS,
| sorry).
|
| And professional photographers tend to be largely
| nontechnical people who aren't keen on tinkering with
| some conversion workflow, possibly including ImageMagick
| or other Linux-native tools of questionable compatibility
| with the file formats (and again, on decade-old macOS)
| going just so they can do their work.
| gyomu wrote:
| > any reason these old tools can't be used nowadays
|
| For Aperture specifically:
|
| - it doesn't run on newer machines. Sure there are
| workarounds (run it in a VM, use a dedicated old computer,
| ...) but those are clunky and people want things to run
| smoothly within their current setups.
|
| - it doesn't support newer file formats (the insistence of
| many manufacturers to use proprietary RAW formats when there
| truly is no need to is its own rant-worthy rabbit hole...)
|
| - even if people praise the UI and remember it fondly, there
| are a number of modern tools and conveniences one expects in
| photography software in 2025 that 2010 Aperture doesn't have.
| Eg people care about things like AI denoising/upscaling now,
| support for HDR color profiles, etc.
|
| > it seems like using and taking care of legacy tools is the
| best we're got
|
| I'd vote for supporting independent developers and open
| source software.
| jwr wrote:
| Aperture doesn't run on newer MacOS systems.
|
| I keep and old Mac laptop with an old OS just to run Aperture
| so that I can access my archives.
| abruzzi wrote:
| I still keep all my digital photos and film scans, except those
| photos that originate from a Leaf or Phase One digital back, in
| Aperture. (the raw format of those digital backs pretty much
| requires Capture One.) The machine does not visit the internet
| because it needs 10.14 to run and there haven't been security
| updates in a while.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| > It was powered by some of the most impressive technology around
| at the time, but you'd never even know it because _you were too
| busy getting shit done_.
|
| If you're busy getting shit done you will not have time to
| _engage_ with ads. That became a problem once technology switched
| from being a tool to an advertising delivery vehicle.
| trinix912 wrote:
| Until you have to do extra work to get them out of your way,
| wait for them to end, scroll more down/up and so on. They're
| also one more thing making UIs less deterministic which IMO is
| a lost art.
| dangus wrote:
| I'm confused at how advertising is related to the subject at
| hand, since Apple does not offer a photo app with advertising.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| Technology has been increasingly pushing towards advertising
| and media consumption over productivity, and productivity
| features have been left to degrade or outright removed.
|
| Apple may not offer a photo app with advertising but the
| photo apps it offers are clearly inferior with less
| information density and less powerful features, because there
| is no longer incentive to offer a powerful photography
| _tool_.
|
| In fact since a lot of software "success" is measured with
| "engagement" (regardless of the presence of ads), making a
| productive tool isn't incentivized as it would _reduce_
| engagement if the tool allows one to complete their task
| faster.
| dangus wrote:
| I don't disagree with you but it's not relevant to the
| topic at hand, and it's not a contributing factor to
| Aperture getting discontinued.
| geerlingguy wrote:
| I still mourn the loss of Aperture. IMO the best pro software
| Apple ever made. Lightroom was always a distant second for RAW
| photo workflows, and Photos is still a far cry.
| SanjayMehta wrote:
| I went from Aperture to LR 5 to DXO and Affinity. But nothing
| beats Aperture.
| tempodox wrote:
| I miss Aperture dearly, too. It is a monument of a time when
| Apple still could do Software, instead of just Services that feel
| restrictive and patronizing. I cannot get myself to use that
| shitty Photos app and am still constantly on the lookout for
| something to recreate the Aperture of old.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Many of the "old-timers" on the Photos team (when I was on that
| team for a couple of years) also missed Aperture. Very much so.
|
| Many kept Aperture running on a device at home--still used it
| for their own workflows (many passionate photographers on that
| team--surprise!). And in fact when it came time to discuss
| future Photos features there was always a contingent pushing to
| add back features that were lost in the transition away from
| Aperture.
|
| While I was there, for example, they pushed (and got) Curves
| added to the editing pane. Levels had always been there but the
| purists missed the more laser-focused "curve" adjustments.
|
| They wanted, did not get, the ability to "brush" a setting (the
| way you might dodge/burn an area of the image).
|
| These days, who knows. Like me, perhaps the old guard have
| moved on...
|
| (To clarify though, I was never the "old guard" with regard to
| the Photos team--had never worked on Aperture.)
| kccqzy wrote:
| Around the time Aperture became dead, I was looking for a
| photo editing app on the iPhone; three of my non-negotiable
| requirements: non-destructive adjustments, curves, and the
| ability to brush a mask for an adjustment. I found Snapseed
| which fulfilled these requirements. But of course, why did I
| get the idea for these requirements of mine? Aperture of
| course. Once you got used to the features of Aperture, you
| really don't want to use a lesser app like Photos.
| ghostly_s wrote:
| > And in fact when it came time to discuss future Photos
| features there was always a contingent pushing to add back
| features that were lost in the transition away from Aperture.
|
| Apple actually publicly promised they would be doing this
| when they killed it. But not much ever came of it.
| ericwood wrote:
| It is so disappointing; I started getting into photography over
| the past few years, shooting rolls of film here and there and
| need some basic library management tools to track my shots and
| add EXIF data for film stock, camera, etc. Photos.app _kind of_
| does what I need, but there 's baffling decisions like all
| photo data being uneditable, even through APIs. You can edit
| EXIF data on the original image but the app's internal database
| is completely immutable. I have a handful of photos with
| inconsistent metadata I'd love to fix and the only option
| appears to be removing them from the library and re-adding
| them.
|
| I really don't need many features! I'm not a pro and while I
| wouldn't mind shelling out a one-time fee for good software I'm
| not paying a subscription for cloud storage I'm not going to
| use. The OSS options here are not awesome, either.
| hahn-kev wrote:
| Someone should vibe code a new version of Aperture
| grey-area wrote:
| Please do go ahead and try it. Should just take an afternoon,
| right?
| irl_zebra wrote:
| This sounds like a great half-day project. Just use Gas Town
| and create a team of product managers, senior and junior
| developers, designers, and architects and have them get on it.
| (I recommend keeping Opus as the senior, and Sonnet as the
| juniors). Once you do this, you can release it and you'll be a
| (very financially successful) hero!
| wiseowise wrote:
| And here I thought it'll be about Portal.
| petecooper wrote:
| Nitro comes close:
|
| https://www.gentlemencoders.com/nitro-for-macos/
| ____________g wrote:
| Just wanted to add that Nitro was built by Nik Bhatt, who was
| the Senior Director of Engineering at Apple leading the
| Aperture and Core Image teams. I believe he built Nitro
| specifically to fill the vacuum Apple left behind. Not sure how
| close it gets to the OG.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Yeah, I was on the Photos team when Nik Bhatt left Apple to
| start this project/company. So I suppose you clearly have
| Aperture DNA there...
| softinio wrote:
| shame I had not heard of this till today.
| matwood wrote:
| Also loved Aperture and also a shame this is the first time
| I've heard of this tool.
| macshome wrote:
| I'm a big fan of their Raw Power app as well that predated
| Nitro.
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| thanks for recommending that: i had not found it and also
| lament Aperture's retirement for years. Subscribed monthly to
| Nitro just now...looks great
| shevy-java wrote:
| There is sort of a correlation here:
|
| > AI for some reason, and amongst the complaining in the comments
| you'll invariably find it: "I miss Aperture."
|
| and:
|
| > Apple released macOS Tahoe, which has been pretty constantly
| raked over the coals for poor design and broken interactions from
| the day it was released (and even before, if we're honest).
|
| Of course this may not indicate causation, but I believe that the
| AI hype has also in part led to a decline in quality overall. Not
| necessarily everywhere, but there is almost definitely some
| influence that degraded things. I see this all the time on
| youtube videos or Google search. In fact, I recently also
| switched to other search engines; they have issues too, but
| Google search consistently yields worse results nowadays, even
| when the search string used excludes AI and other things. The
| quality declined overall. (And on youtube you can not even really
| search for much at all, Google tends to show some unrelated crap
| after some time. They are deliberately trying to waste time of
| humans.)
| Nextgrid wrote:
| The decline has started before LLMs became a thing.
| jwr wrote:
| Sigh. After Apple suddenly discontinued Aperture, which left
| users like me with huge complex photo archives hanging, I will
| never trust any professional software tool from Apple again. It
| is a disaster that I still haven't fully recovered from.
|
| I've learned my lesson -- all my archives will now be maintained
| by me, in file structures, with metadata in text files.
|
| And yes, I agree with the article, Aperture was a really good
| piece of software, with many design decisions that seemed
| controversial, but were driven by many hours spent with
| professional photographers, looking at their workflows and
| listening to them. The result was very good.
| hoyhoy wrote:
| I've been having the same thought. Just move back to a file
| structure which is what I was doing from 1995 until 2007 before
| migrating to iPhoto.
|
| The metadata in Apple Photos doesn't fully sync to iOS over a
| cable now. Did Apple intentionally make offline sync not work
| to force everyone on to iCloud? Also, even the local search
| inside of Apple Photos doesn't work correctly either. I thought
| it was hilarious when they tried add "AI" to this shitshow.
| Apple literally can't even make a local tag search.
|
| Isn't it possible to put all the metadata in EXIF tags? People
| keep telling me to use Immich, but IDK.
| alextsayun wrote:
| They will soon add Photomator app to Apple Creator Studio. They
| have bought Pixelmator team last year and since Pixelmator is
| already in this bundle, I think the next app will be Photomator,
| a pretty close replacement for Aperture.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| I think you might be right. I've been using Pixelmator (and
| recently Pixelmator Pro) for years now. It's a great app and
| has the "paint an effect" (like blur, sharpen) that Aperture
| had. I suspect this app, now that Apple bought it, will be
| where we look for Aperture-like features going forward.
| amir wrote:
| Neither provides a DAM though. Photomator's asset management
| features are basically what Photos provides, which is far
| inferior to Aperture's DAM features. Many who miss Aperture
| aren't just lamenting the editing tools, they miss library
| organisation features that Photos simply doesn't offer.
| matwood wrote:
| Exactly! There are plenty of photo editors that could replace
| Aperture (and LR if you'd like), but DAM always seems to be
| the missing piece.
|
| I'm using Photos DAM after leaving LR which I was forced to
| when Aperture went away.
| divan wrote:
| It's actually good. I use it as my main photo editing app, as
| it's does exactly what I need, does it good and fast. So my
| workflow is Photo Mechanic for culling, then importing RAWs
| into Apple Photos (not to the gallery, just as a separate
| folder/album) and then it gets picked up by Photomator
| automatically. It's not a perfect flow (Apple does some weird
| conversion from RAW in the background and it takes a lot of CPU
| time when importing a lot of photos), but it gives me pretty
| much all what I need (including face recognition, ML
| exposure/color, quick subject/background masking, HDR photos
| editing, etc).
| spiritplumber wrote:
| Wish we could put Cave Johnson back in charge. That'd fix it!
| bix6 wrote:
| What are people using now? I'm so tired of LR and planning to
| make the switch to darktable.
| Arubis wrote:
| Aperture's death coincided with my life getting less excitingly
| photogenic. The combination was enough to break my habit of
| shooting pictures altogether.
|
| My old well-curated and edited and tagged libraries are still
| on S3 backups. No conversion has been satisfactory.
| monocultured wrote:
| I switched to Capture One a couple years ago and like it - used
| Lightroom Classic for many years before that, and think I've
| tried most DAMs over the years.
| _0xdd wrote:
| Darktable. It has a hell of a learning curve, but it's one hell
| of a powerful raw editor with some really cool masking
| features. It has a reputation for being difficult to learn, but
| the newest release bundles a new tone mapper (AgX) that
| requires a whole lot less massaging than the old Filmic (and,
| to a lesser extent, the later Sigmoid mapper). I'm back to
| managing my photo libraries using plain old files and folders,
| and syncing them to my NAS using Syncthing. I couldn't be
| happier, and it doesn't cost me a dime.
| needSomeCoffee wrote:
| Just a comment to the author. Very much appreciate how you go
| about explaining this, and your writing style. Thanks for taking
| the time. NSC...
|
| ...an ex-Arpeture user.
| nicoburns wrote:
| I haven't used it in a decade, but when I last did need this kind
| of software IdImager's Photo Supreme came out top of my research.
|
| The photo editing capabilities were relatively weak (but it would
| integrate nicely with the editing software of your choice), but
| the cataloging capabilities were fantastic, and it had a lot of
| flexibility about how the files were stored on disk (have it
| organise that for you or not) and the option to store the
| metadata it created directly in the metadata of photo files
| themselves where much of it could be read by other software.
|
| https://www.idimager.com/
| softinio wrote:
| Aperture was the best. I miss it.
| paradox460 wrote:
| Even worse when you look at things like Shake. Apple owned
| compositing for at least half a decade, and then just gave up,
| leaving a void
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-01-25 23:01 UTC)