BBEdit 12 is out. You can nearly make it look better with a dark theme now (although the circular “close” buttons indicating an open file are ugly) although it seems like there’s a bug in the theme customization right now. The Ulysses folks might consider this: cost of BBEdit 12 upgrade: $30. Cost of Ulysses for existing owners: $30. BBEdit 11 was released in 2014. BBEdit 12 has more new features than Ulysses has features. BBEdit is targeted at a smaller audience than Ulysses, so it’s not like it makes up for its low pricing on volume. That said, Ulysses is definitely prettier than BBEdit.
I’ve been pretty happy with Crashplan for five years or so, although lately not so much. Obviously, one reason to be unhappy with Crashplan is that they’re no longer supporting the family plan I was using to back up all our Macs. Worse, their quality of service seems to have (understandably) slipped as my plan approaches its termination.
Exhibit 1: my wife bought a new laptop. When she tried to restore files from her old laptop, they were MIA.
So, here we are at a nasty juncture where our supposedly bulletproof fire-and-forget backup system is (a) not working terribly well and (b) shortly going to not work at all.
Possible Crashplan Replacements
The obvious replacement is Carbonite. The problem with Carbonite is that it’s going either (a) be a lot more expensive than Crashplan was (because of our family plan — which is the equivalent of, effectively, n $100/year plans where n is the number of computers you back up; the small business plan works out as being stupidly expensive if you have more than 250GB of data) or (b) require me to do a bunch of work (i.e. set up one computer as the family server, have all the other devices back up to it, and then back it up via Carbonite. So Carbonite will either cost $300 (say) per year or $100 per year but require me to be my own network engineer. Oh, and forget mobile backups.
If I want to do a whole bunch of work I might as well just use Amazon S3. For 2TB of data that’s a mere $46/month. Ouch. I could probably use their cheaper long term storage, but now I’m basically starting my own Crashplan / Dropbox implementation and that sounds kind of like hard work. Forget that.
So, on to the “consumer” options (I’ve tried to pick 2TB plans as this is the absolute minimum I can live with):
- Dropbox — $99 p.a. 1TB (there is no 2TB plan)
- Box — $540 p.a. for unlimited (3 computers)
- Hubic — $60 p.a. 10TB
- Amazon — $120 p.a. 2TB
- Google — $240 p.a. 2TB
- Microsoft — $99 p.a. 5 users, 1TB/user
- Apple — $120 p.a. 2TB (no Android client)
(Edit: TablePress was a disaster.)
Note that all these services support web browser access, so you can get at your files from any device with a web browser, but I’m talking about file-system integration where you can just save your file in the usual place and it’s seamlessly backed up to the cloud. I should note that Dropbox and Hubic even provide Linux clients. Everyone supports Mac, Windows, and iOS.
At first glance, Hubic looks like the standout value-for-money option. (Hubic is essentially like Dropbox, except it’s run by a gigantic hosting company). The problem is that I’ve found Hubic to have a poor user experience, especially with regard to performance. (My own experience is quite limited — and I’m kind of shocked that my blog post on Dropbox vs. Box vs. Hubic ranks quite high on Google searches for “Hubic Review”.) This may be a result of server location, or simply under-provisioning (10TB is so close to “unlimited” that I imagine it attracts a lot of abusive users).
(Edit: I should mention that Hubic offers both Dropbox-like services and backup services. It also has what looks like a pretty robust API. Also there are advantages to storing your data in France. On the other hand — no 2FA.)
At second glance, Microsoft OneDrive seems like a great deal at 5TB for $100/year. The problem is that it’s 5x 1TB per user, which is effectively 1TB. Still, a great deal if you’re happy with 1TB and want Microsoft Office for your family.
The shock comes at third glance — Apple’s product is competitively priced (cheaper than Dropbox!). It doesn’t support Android (surprise!) but aside from that it’s a great deal, you can share it with your family (with each person having segregated storage), it requires no real configuration and — this is the kicker — it’s smart about mirroring stuff to your devices. Want a 1TB photo library in the cloud? Great. Want it on every one of your family computers? Not so much.
Hubic is the clear winner in terms of price per unit storage. Apple is the clear winner in terms of functionality and comes second in price. When I take into account the fact that I pay Apple $3/month for a lower tier of storage just for convenient mobile backups it’s an even better deal (hooray for Opportunity Cost). After some consideration I’m thinking of doing both. Hubic for volume backup and iCloud for convenience.
I’ll let you know how it works out.
I nearly gave up on Hubic. After paying for the 10TB plan I received no response and my account didn’t change… Well, until the next day. Sacré bleu! I’m still a bit concerned that the app hasn’t been updated since 2015, but it seems to work.
Anyway, I’m going to start backing up to Hubic and we’ll see how things go.
Further research has shown that there are two more reasonably-priced alternatives to Carbonite, notably iDrive and Backblaze. Backblaze seems very compelling for a single computer ($5/month unlimited; $4 with a two year plan), and not bad for a small number of computers (it works out as roughly the same as Crashplan for 3 computers). iDrive is offering some interesting discounts (and lets you handle any number of computers with one account) but I find the website poor to the point of suspecting the competence of the company.
The life cycle of software — as exemplified by Photoshop — is:
- A new program with an unfamiliar UI but incredibly useful features attracts a devoted following.
- The devoted followers evangelize the product they love to more people. For a while.
- The developers stop adding new features that anyone cares about and add a subscription model when people stop buying new licenses.
Here’s what I want(ed) from Ulysses:
- Better ways of managing images. E.g. the ability to browse all images within a given “folder” and update, export, replace, rename, or locate them.
- Simpler ways to create custom styles. E.g. the ability to make a document style-guide compliant for a given purpose (such as APA).
There’s other stuff but it’s much lower priority.
Instead what we get is a subscription model and no new features I care about. Indeed, the announcement on the Ulysses web site explains how the subscription model allows them to offer a free trial while the blog post on the subject tells me that they didn’t take this decision lightly, but nowhere do I see anything that helps me — someone who has paid for the iOS and Mac versions and hasn’t seen any useful features added in years. But I do get a discount for subscribing to a product I already fucking paid for.
No thank you.
Post Script: out of a sense of hopefulness and fairness and not wanting to be horribly wrong, I downloaded the new version.
The discount for existing owners is 25%. I.e. $30/year vs $40.
I found one nice bug fix — if you search for something and then edit a file found by searching, it doesn’t whisk the file away and lose context if you delete the search term while editing.
Also there’s a nice new feature — inline image previews. Long overdue but also not that well-implemented.
I emailed Ulysses support and whined a bit along the lines above and was told that adding table-of-contents generation, a table editor, and an image editor were high on their “to-do” list, and if I subscribed I could vote for features.
(I noted in my reply to their reply that I don’t want an image editor. I have image editors. I want image management.)
So, I’m kind of torn. I like indie software developers. I like Ulysses quite a bit, despite its sluggish progress. $30 isn’t much money (although it is, ugh, a subscription).
I’ll think further on it.
As my frequent reader knows, I have been grappling with my RAW workflow for as long as I have had a RAW workflow. I’m hardly a pro or even much of an enthusiast, and I find dealing with all these files exhausting (it also consumes a stupid amount of disk space, etc.)
A user of Photoshop since it was called Barneyscan, and Illustrator since it was 88, I’ve been ambivalent about Adobe’s products ever since they started renting them; this was actually before they switched to monthly fees — the Creative Suites essentially forced you to upgrade on a constant basis simply to not have your software mysteriously stop launching when Adobe’s authentication servers were down.
Today, despite paying Adobe’s tax (albeit the lesser “Photographer’s” tax of $100/year) I remain unhappy with their products. Lightroom is slow, constantly wants patching, requires me to sign in (often more than once) to Adobe’s stupid services just to launch, and on and on. But, until recently, I had no credible alternative that was fast and produced even vaguely decent results.
But now there are two inexpensive, lightweight products that together may mean I don’t need Adobe’s crap any more (I’ll get back to you!):
FastRawViewer — endorsed by no less than Thom Hogan and Nasim Mansurov — is a terrific program that does exactly what it says on the can. It’s simple and lets you browse and rate photos really, really fast. You can customize its keyboard shortcuts to your pleasure (e.g. I have ratings mapped to the 0-5 keys, and P toggles high pass filtering so you can see exactly what, if anything, is in focus without pixel-peeping. Rather than having its own proprietary catalog system, it leverages your file system and XMP metadata (“sidecar” files that are compatible with Lightroom if that still floats your boat). It costs $20, you can get it here.
RAWPower — developed by former Aperture engineers (or a former Aperture engineer; I’m not sure) — gives you most of Aperture’s non-destructive RAW processing in a fast, lightweight app that also provides the same functionality via Apple’s Photos app. I like the Photos app except for the whole slower-than-treacle-in-a-walled-garden thing, so there’s that too. It costs $15 in the App Store. My only issue with RAWPower is that its crop-and-rotate tool is clumsy if you want to both crop AND rotate, which I usually do (and I’ve been told that addressing this issue is a priority).
(If you’re a Windows user, FastRawViewer is still great, but RAWPower is Mac only.)
FastRawViewer lets me view a folder with thousands of RAW files with no waiting (just dragging the folder info Lightroom, Photos, or Aperture would be agony), and RAWPower lets me adjust exposure, shadow recovery, straightening, and so forth faster and just as competently as Lightroom. (Photoshop still wins for any major surgery, obviously — RAWPower has no dodge, burn, layers, healing brush, perspective correction, stitching, etc.)
Note: if you’re interested in using Affinity Photo for processing RAW photos (i.e. its “non-destructive workflow”) you’re probably going to be horribly disappointed. See my followup article.
Affinity Photo has just come out of beta and is being sold for a discounted price of $40 (its regular price will be $50). As with Affinity Designer, it’s well-presented, with an attractive icon and a dark interface that is reminiscent of late model Adobe Creative Cloud and Apple Pro software. So, where does it fit in the pantheon of would-be Photoshop alternatives?
In terms of core functionality, it appears to fit in above Acorn and below Photoline. In particular, Photoline supports HDR as well as 16-bit and LAB color, while Affinity Photo lacks support for HDR editing. Unless you work with HDR (and clearly not many people do) then Affinity Designer is both less expensive than Photoline, and far more polished in terms of the features it does support.
Affinity Designer supports non-destructive import of RAW files. When you open a RAW file you enter “Develop” mode where you can perform adjustments to exposure, curves, noise, and so forth on the RAW data before it gets converted to 8- or 16-bit RGB. Once you leave Develop mode, you can return and second-guess your adjustments (on a layer-by-layer basis). This alone is worth the price of admission, and leaves Acorn, Pixelmator, and Photoline in the dust.
In essence you get the non-destructive workflow of Lightroom and the pixel-manipulation capabilities of Photoshop in a single package, with the ability to move from one to the other at any point in your workflow. Let me repeat that — you can “develop” your raw, go mess with pixels in the resulting image, then go back and second-guess your “develop” settings (while retaining your pixel-level manipulations) and so on.
This feature isn’t quite perfect. E.g. you can’t go back and second-guess a crop, and vector layer operations, such as text overlays, get reduced to a “pixel” layer if you go back to develop mode. But it’s a big step in the right direction and for a lot of purposes it’s just dandy.
This is just my first impressions, but there are some things that could be better.
Affinity Photo provides adjustment layers, live filter layers, filters, and layer effects — in many cases providing multiple versions of the same filter in different places. Aside from having functionality scattered and in arbitrary buckets, you get several different user interfaces. This is a mess, and it is a direct result of copying Photoshop’s crazy UI (accumulated over decades of accumulated functionality) rather than having a consolidated, unified approach the way Acorn does.
At first I thought Affinity Photo didn’t support layer styles, but it does. Unfortunately you can’t simply copy and paste layer styles (the way you can in Photoshop and Acorn), so the workflow is a bit more convoluted (you need to create a style from a selection and then apply it elsewhere — often you just want to copy a style from A to B without creating a reusable (or linked) style so this is a bit unfortunate).
I really like the fact that the RGB histogram gives a quick “approximate” view but shows a little warning symbol on it. When you click it, it does a per-pixel histogram (quite quickly, at least on my 24MP images).
I don’t see any support for stitching images, so if that’s important to you (and it’s certainly very important to landscape photographers) then you’ll need to stick with Adobe, or specialized plugins or software.
It also seems to lack smart resize and smart delete or Photoshop’s new motion blur removal functions. (Photoline also does smart delete and smart resize.)
Anyway, it’s a great first release, and definitely fulfills the promise of the public betas. It seems to me that it’s a more solid overall effort than Affinity Designer was when first released, and I’m probably a more demanding user of Photoshop-like programs than I am of Illustrator-like programs. I can understand the desire to provide a user interface familiar to Adobe products even at the cost of making them unnecessarily confusing and poorly organized, but I hope that sanity prevails in the long run.
Bottom line: a more complete and attractive package than either Photoline or Acorn (its most credible competitors) and better in some ways than Photoshop.