Adobe Releases Guide on Transitioning Photos From Aperture to Lightroom

Back in June, Apple announced plans to discontinue development on both Aperture and iPhoto in favor of the new Photos app that will be added to both iOS 8 and OS X Yosemite in the future.

Adobe took advantage of Aperture's discontinuation, announcing its own plans to create a tool to help former Aperture and iPhoto customers transition to Lightroom, Adobe's professional photo editing software.

Adobe today released a guide [PDF] for users who are interested in making the switch from Aperture to Lightroom immediately, which can be accessed from the Adobe website.


In the guide, Adobe notes that a simple tool remains in development, but for users who don't mind going through a detailed migration process, it's possible to switch from Aperture to Lightroom immediately. The process involves creating a full backup, exporting original photos from Aperture, exporting TIFF versions of edited Aperture photos, and importing the content to Lightroom.

Adobe's guide also includes links to learning more about how to use Lightroom and it points users towards Adobe's Creative Cloud Photography plan, which offers access to Lightroom for desktop, web, and mobile along with Photoshop CC for $9.99 per month.

Users who don't want to go through the hassle of exporting and importing files from Aperture to Lightroom can wait for Adobe's migration tool to be completed.

While Apple is ceasing development on Aperture in favor of Photos, early screenshots of the app and information from Apple representatives has suggested that some of Aperture's professional-grade features may make it into the Photos app. Photos will also include tools to allow users to import iPhoto and Aperture libraries into the new app.

Top Rated Comments

(View all)

11 weeks ago
Unnecessary. If everyone will just hang on for the release of Photos for Mac they will see that it will handle just about everything Aperture does. Apple is not about to throw away their photography clients when photography is becoming more and more important to them. Hang on, folks. Adobe wants you to panic. You really don't need to.
Rating: 15 Votes
11 weeks ago
Apple is pretty brain dead when it comes to Application life cycle management.
Rating: 10 Votes
11 weeks ago

Unnecessary. If everyone will just hang on for the release of Photos for Mac they will see that it will handle just about everything Aperture does......


Experience tells us it will do about 50+ percent of what Aperture does, and the missing functionality will come when Apple gets around to it, provided they think a hip teenager really needs or is smart enough to use that functionality.
Rating: 8 Votes
11 weeks ago
Why does anyone think paying $9.99 a month or $119.88 a year is something anyone would rush over and convert to? Aperture is $79.99 and is still for sale. Here's a simple comparison. In the three years I've owned Aperture it has cost me $79.99 for the entire time. If I do the same with Adobe I've now spent $359.64. That sucks anyway you dice it.

So Astrobrat is right. I'll continue to use Aperture until it won't run on a Mac anymore, then I'll most likely switch over to Corel After Shot Pro 2. It is a very similar product to Aperture, is faster than Adobe, and is the same $79.99. It will work on Mac or PC too.

I much prefer owning software or apps instead of renting them online. Why pay a subscription fee that only serves the need to feed the corporate monster and does not do anything better or unique to less expensive owned alternatives.
Rating: 7 Votes
11 weeks ago
Oh god why is this happening. :( I really loved the Apple-y-ness that was Aperture, great and easy to use and had great iCloud integration. Also the end product looked stunning when done correctly. Why are they throwing this away? I tried Lightroom and it's not my cup of tea, it's just not as much of a delight to use as Aperture and rather frustrating and annoying (probably just me). And I also have powerful machines but Aperture just seems to run better than Lightroom.

I really wish they would've developed a huge update to this and released the long-awaited version 4. It's a shame really, maybe their Photos alternative will be a good replacement but I don't see it.

I do agree on the fact that this had to be done to iPhoto but not Aperture. iPhoto is what iTunes is to music, a mess, so simplifying it with iOS integration made sense. But there is a professional field out there and it's terrible to see Apple heading in the direction they are heading, and frankly I'm concerned about the existence of Logic Pro and maybe even FCPX.
Rating: 6 Votes
11 weeks ago
Come on, Apple, quit throwing away your customers.
Rating: 6 Votes
11 weeks ago

Unnecessary. If everyone will just hang on for the release of Photos for Mac they will see that it will handle just about everything Aperture does. Apple is not about to throw away their photography clients when photography is becoming more and more important to them. Hang on, folks. Adobe wants you to panic. You really don't need to.

Apple's Final Cut X and latest iWork releases prove otherwise.

Gesh, they even had to write a Support Article to deal with the uproar of all of the missing features in iWork.

In rewriting these applications, some features from iWork ’09 were not available for the initial release. We have reintroduced some of these features and will continue to add brand new features on an ongoing basis.

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT6049

Personally, I would expect the same thing from the new Photos app. It'll be missing many features at the beginning that Apple will add in over time.

Since Aperture will continue to work with Yosemite, I don't feel the immediate need to jump anywhere for my photos (including the first version of Photos, whenever it comes out).
Rating: 5 Votes
11 weeks ago

I tried Lightroom and it's not my cup of tea, it's just not as much of a delight to use as Aperture and rather frustrating and annoying (probably just me).


No, it's not just you. Frustrating and annoying are accurate assessments of nearly everything Adobe makes.

I really wish they would've developed a huge update to this and released the long-awaited version 4. It's a shame really, maybe their Photos alternative will be a good replacement but I don't see.


They are developing a huge update. It will just have a different name now. Most of the real improvements will be under the hood, so it may take awhile after its release before you can fully appreciate or even notice them. If Final Cut Pro X is any indication, user features will be re-implemented over time. And it will take full advantage of the hardware they are selling now, like the new Mac Pro.

You can only expand an existing code base so much. Eventually, you get to the point where the only way to go forward is to take a couple steps back.
Rating: 4 Votes
11 weeks ago
This was posted on another thread by CausticPuppy, but I endorse it 100% (that's why I repost it here) and I'll wait until I can use Photos before I start even considering thinking about moving to LR.


Originally Posted by CausticPuppy in another thread about Photos and the discontinue of Aperture and iPhoto:

"I don't think the program has to live up to the hype. If you want to see where Apple is going with photos, don't get hung up on the Photos app but look at what they are making available to developers.


Yosemite has an all-new RAW processing engine, with vastly improved noise reduction, support for multiple GPU's, and the ability to allow 3rd party plugins to apply filters during RAW processing. They certainly are NOT giving up on photography, rather they are giving 3rd party developers a lot more power by developing an extremely capable photography platform.

In LR, the noise reduction takes a second or two after you move the slider; with Yosemite, Apple demonstrated NR working in real-time at 60 fps!! That's probably on a Mac Pro using dual GPU's, but still significantly faster than anything else out there.

The Photos app itself might have some editing capability but probably not everything Aperture had (though it certainly WILL preserve edits done in Aperture, just like iPhoto currently does even though it's not as capable). But, Photos will be extensible and there will be professional-level 3rd party plugins, which will all be able to work non-destructively.

Hopefully, Lightroom will make use of Apple's new API but then they'd give up on their proprietary RAW engine. Apple's API allows direct access to the RAW pipeline, with GPU acceleration, direct access to Apple's DAM, while Adobe's is closed off and requires 3rd party developers to either work with huge TIFF files, or stay limited to creating presets with Adobe's built-in editing tools.

A year from now it'll be "your move, Adobe." "
Rating: 4 Votes
11 weeks ago

For anyone that is likely to have the level of interest to be an Aperture user, wouldn't the transitioning process of 'creating a backup, exporting as TIFF and importing to Lightroom' be patently bleedin' obvious?!

What would be more helpful is if Adobe created an application that actually converted the RAW file edit data (never gonna happen).


Exactly, and with this press release Adobe has shown their hand: they are NOT going to ever support getting anything but the original or edited versions out of Aperture as TIFF files. That "migration" workflow means that all your actual work in Aperture is lost: you can get the original photos out, or you can get the end-stage photos out, but not both, and certainly not any of the nondestructive edits along the way. For people who really used Aperture to its limits, Adobe just doesn't "get it" and with this press release has shown they have no intention of trying.

Which means, no matter how pessimistic you are about Photos ever replacing Aperture, if you've actually been doing work in Aperture rather than just using it as a more expensive iPhoto, your best bet is to give Apple first shot at replacing Aperture. Which of course was obvious before this (why pay $10/month to Adobe for the next year and some while Aperture is still supported by Apple?)

If Lightroom works better for you than Aperture (I've heard lots of folks say this is the case with them) I'd assume you've long since switched over. For those of us still holding onto our old copies of Aperture, I can't see any reason why forcing a switch to Lightroom now would ever be a good choice - wait until the alternatives, especially Apple's, are all out and ready to pick from.
Rating: 4 Votes

[ Read All Comments ]