10 replies to this topic

[Jerry_]

While I had been reluctant quite a while to upgrade from Mavericks (OSX 10.9) I have now taken the step, basically because I was in a situation with an ideal backup.

My main concern was always with Aperture being on the phase-out line, having experienced how Apple stopped the support for iPhotos on iPad after having installed iOS7.

Indeed my iMac dating back to 2009 is still working perfectly, but the harddisk was starting to make noise, which I qualified to be a bad indicator. (On average I try to use harddisks for no longer than 4 years before changing, but changing the disks is a technically complicate operation on an iMac - nonetheless, I might now turn it in to a repair center for having the HD changed).

So, about a week ago, I took an extra backup with Timemachine from the Mavericks configuration and restored it on a new Mac mini (on which I had tested El Capitan before). That operation worked fine, except that some licences (DxO, MacPhun products, Microsoft office) hadn't been automatically transfered, so I needed to use one of the extra licence keys for this.

After having tested the new hardware configuration, which was still operating with Mavericks, I took the final step of migrating to El Capitan yesterday (thereby skipping OSX 10.10 Yosemite).

The initial installation worked fine. Not unexpectedly, Aperture was not working imediately, but stated it would require an update. However, when choosing to update I got the message that this update was not available on my national store. On the other hand I could download and install it from the Appstore.

When rebooting the Mac for the first time and after having installed the update for Aperture, the computer hang up during the boot process. After two trials to reboot I decided to enter the recovery mode (pressing CMD R during the boot process). Then, when having the recovery options, I thought I give OSX 10.11 a second chance and choose to reinstall the OS (over the same version)

Now the Mac is working fine (crossing fingers) and I have access to my Aperture library. But rather sooner than later I will have to switch to Lightroom and Photoshop. Hopefully that at that moment they have some direct connection to iTunes, so that I can continue to synchronize selected folders with my iPad.

[Ron]

Jerry, for whatever it's worth to you, Adobe has a Lightroom app that runs on iOS and allows syncing your Mac's Lightroom catalog with your iPad. There is also an Android version, which is what I have installed on my ASUS pad, but as I understand it, the iOS version is much nicer. It does work though and it even created a separate collection in my Lightroom catalog that contains some images on my pad which I put there and synced with the PC, just as a test. Everything was automatic.

 

When I ran Macs, ... many years ago, I always had at least two complete OS installs on all my machines. Of course that meant partitioning the HD which Apple never liked their users doing. In any case, that arrangement saved my bacon a couple of times... that, along with Disk Warrior. LOL

 

--Ron

[Jerry_]

Ron, thanks for the suggestion. As I already have LR installed on both the Mac and the iPad (installed it to get familiar with it, but continued using Aperture and iTunes) I will give it a check for keeping images automatically synched between the two devices.

[RossCumming]

Hi Jerry, interesting comments.

 

I am still running Mavericks but looking to upgrade to El Capitan over the next few weeks or so, also skipping Yosemite.

 

I am running Lightroom (with Google NIK Efex suite), Photoshop CC and MS Office 2013 so hopefully it will all "just work" for me!

 

Not entirely sure exactly when over the next few weeks; I want to be in the house during the upgrade so I can keep an sye on it but don't have too many free time at weekends between now and the end of the year.

 

I still haven't pulled the tigger on buying a Mcbook Pro yet either, still looking at the options available to me; either 13" or 15.4". If I go for the Bigger MBP I will most likely sacrifice HDD capacity and go for the 256Gb version rather than 512Gb version due to cost, I htink having the quad core i7 processor will be a better long-term investment over the dual core i5/i7 options on the 13" MBP. If I do go ahead with a MBP, this would be another reason for updating to El Capitan on the iMAC so both would be the same OS (keeps my better-half happy if they both look and work the same!).

[TBonz]

I have a MBP 15.4" from several years ago - the first Retina model.  I opted for the 512GB...very fast dealing with the images on the SSD, but I do need to move the images off to an external drive fairly frequently to free up space.  That is mostly because I shoot sports frequently and that means lots of images...

 

Haven't gone to El Capitan yet, but plan to - probably before 2016...I've been running Yosemite for several months now...

[Jerry_]

Ross, the question which MBP to choose depends largely on whether it is your primary computer and secondly where your long term storage of your captures is done. I do agree that a faster processor and local memory should prevail on HD capacity. The main issue being that with recent (post 2012) MBPs you can't do any upgrade, so investing in a powerfull configuration has become a requirement, when you want to keep it for longer (while upgrading OS and software)

My longer term storage is on two NAS drives (one with the bulk of RAW captures and a second one with the selected&processed ones), using a RAID configuration. Therefore, local HD space wouldn't matter much.


Tom, if you have already Yosemite installed, the change shouldn't be that different.

[RossCumming]

Hi Jerry
The MBP would mostly be used as a travelling tool. All image processing will be done on iMAC and stored via that set up (external drive backups).
I would like to use the MPB to learn more PS techniques while I am away from home and also for creating photo books which I don't have time for at home these days due to work commitments, so have a portable device will allow me to do a lot of things I simply cannot get round to doing at home. Processed images would be copied to MBP (or portable HDD or maybe even cloud storage) on an "as required" basis for whatever reason I want to be able to access them for.

For that reason, the HDD capacity is not as important as processor and RAM. I am well aware that the latest MBP's are not designed to have RAM upgraded by the user since it is hard soldered onto the PCB and even though I am electronic engineer with access to tools I am not sure I want to risk removing RAM module and risk lifting a pad ir two in the process on a £1500 laptop! So 16Gb RAM and quad core processor is more important than 512Gb or 1Tb HDD for me I think.

Thanks for your comments.

[cameraperson50]

Anyone any ideas on how to get a Nikon WT4 working on the new OS, Nikon really should keep up

[cameraperson50]

Be careful with Nikon software, not compatible at the moment with this OS,

[Jerry_]

Update:

with the latest version of iTunes, Apple does no longer allow to synchronize with an Aperture library.
Another step to move user either towards their Photos application, either to third party photo editors ...

[leighgion]

Update:

with the latest version of iTunes, Apple does no longer allow to synchronize with an Aperture library.
Another step to move user either towards their Photos application, either to third party photo editors ...

Not true!

Aperture synchronization worked perfectly for me under El Capitan and is still working now that I've updated to Sierra.

If you're having a problem with sync, it's not because Apple has disabled it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk