What is a better program to replace Apple Mac OS X 10.5.7's iPhoto?
Ant
One of my clients does not like Apple Mac OS X 10.5.7's iPhoto which is
limited and confusing to him. He doesn't like how albums, layouts, etc.
work. We would like to know if there are better softwares (freeware if
possible) to handle digital pictures/photographs on a MacBook Pro.
Thank you in advance. :)
--
"Now I have you where I want you... where is my jar of Bull ants?" --unknown
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Phil./Ant @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
| |o o| | Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
\ _ / Nuke ANT from e-mail address: phi...@earthlink.netANT
( ) or ANT...@zimage.com
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on his home computer.
Chris Ridd
> Hello!
>
> One of my clients does not like Apple Mac OS X 10.5.7's iPhoto which is
> limited and confusing to him. He doesn't like how albums, layouts, etc.
> work. We would like to know if there are better softwares (freeware if
> possible) to handle digital pictures/photographs on a MacBook Pro.
>
> Thank you in advance. :)
Try Picasa or Photoshop Elements? They're different from iPhoto, not
necessarily better or worse.
--
Chris
MC
Ant <a...@zimage.comANT> wrote:
> Hello!
>
> One of my clients does not like Apple Mac OS X 10.5.7's iPhoto which is
> limited and confusing to him. He doesn't like how albums, layouts, etc.
> work. We would like to know if there are better softwares (freeware if
> possible) to handle digital pictures/photographs on a MacBook Pro.
>
> Thank you in advance. :)
Graphic Converter is a useful shareware program. It does what it does
really well.
There's a stripped down version of Photoshop called Photoshop Elements.
Not sure what it costs but I think it's around $100.
--
"If you can, tell me something happy."
- Marybones
Calum
> Hello!
>
> One of my clients does not like Apple Mac OS X 10.5.7's iPhoto which is
> limited and confusing to him. He doesn't like how albums, layouts, etc.
> work. We would like to know if there are better softwares (freeware if
> possible) to handle digital pictures/photographs on a MacBook Pro.
For free, Google Picasa is probably your only realistic option.
<http://picasa.google.com/mac/>
However, without knowing how many photos your client has, what he wants
to do with them, what he doesn't like about iPhoto, and how he'd prefer
things to work, it's hard to recommend any alternatives, free or otherwise.
(It's also worth noting that iPhoto is deliberatly somewhat 'limited'
because it has a big brother in the Apple stable, Aperture, that's aimed
more at the professional market.)
Ian Gregory
On 2009-12-17, Ant <a...@zimage.comANT> wrote:
> One of my clients does not like Apple Mac OS X 10.5.7's iPhoto which
> is limited and confusing to him. He doesn't like how albums, layouts,
> etc. work. We would like to know if there are better softwares
> (freeware if possible) to handle digital pictures/photographs on a
> MacBook Pro.
People used to recommend iView Media as an iPhoto alternative but I
hadn't heard anyone mention it recently and it turns out it was aquired
by Microsoft back in 2006.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IView_Media
Personally I couldn't see what was wrong with iPhoto that would make you
want to look elsewhere, but I guess expectations vary:-)
Ian
--
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/
Ant
He does basic stuff like importing/copying photographs/photos. from his
digital cameras, keep them in his HDDs, view them, share/upload via
e-mails and in person, organize, crop/resize, etc. Just basic stuff.
--
"To the ant, a few drops of dew is a flood." --Iranian
Ant
> On 17/12/09 07:29, Ant wrote:
He does basic stuff like importing/copying photographs/photos. from his
digital cameras, keep them in his HDDs, view them, share/upload via
e-mails and in person, organize, crop/resize, etc. Just basic stuff.
--
"To the ant, a few drops of dew is a flood." --Iranian
Jochem Huhmann
>> (It's also worth noting that iPhoto is deliberatly somewhat 'limited'
>> because it has a big brother in the Apple stable, Aperture, that's aimed
>> more at the professional market.)
>
> He does basic stuff like importing/copying photographs/photos. from his
> digital cameras, keep them in his HDDs, view them, share/upload via
> e-mails and in person, organize, crop/resize, etc. Just basic stuff.
Sounds as if he should just read up on what iPhoto does and how to use
it, because he seems to be right in the middle of the target group for
it...
Jochem
--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Jolly Roger
wrote:
> On 12/17/2009 1:35 AM PT, Calum typed:
>
> > On 17/12/09 07:29, Ant wrote:
> >> Hello!
> >>
> >> One of my clients does not like Apple Mac OS X 10.5.7's iPhoto which is
> >> limited and confusing to him. He doesn't like how albums, layouts, etc.
> >> work. We would like to know if there are better softwares (freeware if
> >> possible) to handle digital pictures/photographs on a MacBook Pro.
> >
> > For free, Google Picasa is probably your only realistic option.
> > <http://picasa.google.com/mac/>
> >
> > However, without knowing how many photos your client has, what he wants
> > to do with them, what he doesn't like about iPhoto, and how he'd prefer
> > things to work, it's hard to recommend any alternatives, free or otherwise.
> >
> > (It's also worth noting that iPhoto is deliberatly somewhat 'limited'
> > because it has a big brother in the Apple stable, Aperture, that's aimed
> > more at the professional market.)
>
> He does basic stuff like importing/copying photographs/photos. from his
> digital cameras, keep them in his HDDs, view them, share/upload via
> e-mails and in person, organize, crop/resize, etc. Just basic stuff.
iPhoto is really is quite good at doing those basic things, IMO.
--
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.
JR
Doug Anderson
> On 12/17/2009 1:35 AM PT, Calum typed:
>
> > On 17/12/09 07:29, Ant wrote:
> >> Hello!
> >>
> >> One of my clients does not like Apple Mac OS X 10.5.7's iPhoto which is
> >> limited and confusing to him. He doesn't like how albums, layouts, etc.
> >> work. We would like to know if there are better softwares (freeware if
> >> possible) to handle digital pictures/photographs on a MacBook Pro.
> >
> > For free, Google Picasa is probably your only realistic option.
> > <http://picasa.google.com/mac/>
> >
> > However, without knowing how many photos your client has, what he wants
> > to do with them, what he doesn't like about iPhoto, and how he'd prefer
> > things to work, it's hard to recommend any alternatives, free or otherwise.
> >
> > (It's also worth noting that iPhoto is deliberatly somewhat 'limited'
> > because it has a big brother in the Apple stable, Aperture, that's aimed
> > more at the professional market.)
>
> He does basic stuff like importing/copying photographs/photos. from
> his digital cameras, keep them in his HDDs, view them, share/upload
> via e-mails and in person, organize, crop/resize, etc. Just basic
> stuff.
So what does he dislike about iPhoto? To me it seems well-designed
for exactly this sort of thing.
You mention before that he didn't like the way albums worked, which I
didn't really understand. I don't like "Events" very much, but I just
ignore them. Albums on the other hand are created by the user, so you
set them up however you like. What does he want to happen instead?
You also mention layouts - I wasn't sure what you meant by that.
Maybe it is really some sort of desktop publishing software that he wants
that allows him to layout photos into booklets? (iPhoto does this in
a very limited way, but last time I looked at it I found it
frustrating - so that is something I'd agree on. But it isn't really
the main purpose of iPhoto.)
Ant
>> He does basic stuff like importing/copying photographs/photos. from his
>> digital cameras, keep them in his HDDs, view them, share/upload via
>> e-mails and in person, organize, crop/resize, etc. Just basic stuff.
>
> iPhoto is really is quite good at doing those basic things, IMO.
Yeah, I agree. He was all confused on how to organize, import, manual
copy, etc. with iPhoto. Oh well. I was hoping there was something easier
and better. I guess not.
--
"If they are offered winged ants, people will eat them." --African
Ant
Layouts as in GUI usabilities. Sorry. He got confused on how to copy
selected photographs/photos. files to his MacBook Pro. But he needed to
do an import, not copy like in Windows! And then he got confused on how
to copy/move imported ones to other places (organizing).
--
"An ant's nest could bring down a hill." --Japanese
Paul Magnussen
> iPhoto is really is quite good at doing those basic things, IMO.
But (as I understand) it won't do a lossless rotate of a JPEG, which
GraphicConverter will.
Ian Gregory
On 2009-12-17, Ant <a...@zimage.comANT> wrote:
> Layouts as in GUI usabilities. Sorry. He got confused on how to copy
> selected photographs/photos. files to his MacBook Pro. But he needed to
> do an import, not copy like in Windows! And then he got confused on how
> to copy/move imported ones to other places (organizing).
Why would you need to copy/move to other places to organize? The whole
point of iPhoto is that it provides a method of organising/managing your
photo library without copying or moving anything. If you do want a copy
of an image file to do something else wiith then you can simply drag the
photo out of iPhoto onto your desktop or wherever you want it, but the
originals just stay in iPhoto where you can use various built in
functionality to organise them.
By the way, Aperture is not just a professional version of iPhoto, in
many ways it is more like an alternative to Photoshop. iPhoto is for
organising photos, not editing them.
Doug Anderson
> On 12/17/2009 7:32 AM PT, Jolly Roger typed:
>
> >> He does basic stuff like importing/copying photographs/photos. from his
> >> digital cameras, keep them in his HDDs, view them, share/upload via
> >> e-mails and in person, organize, crop/resize, etc. Just basic stuff.
> >
> > iPhoto is really is quite good at doing those basic things, IMO.
>
> Yeah, I agree. He was all confused on how to organize, import, manual
> copy, etc. with iPhoto. Oh well. I was hoping there was something
> easier and better. I guess not.
There might be things that would be easier for him, depending on how
he thinks these things ought to work.
iPhoto does drag and drop - e.g. you drag a picture (or a folder full
of pictures) to the iPhoto icon (or to an open iPhoto application
window) and that copies them into iPhoto, right? Some people think
that is really easy and good. If your friend has a different idea
about how things work, something else might be better for him.
But it is true that when copying pictures from a camera, one probably
wants to do the "import" thing (though dragging and dropping often
works there too).
The thing I think is iPhoto's big strength though _is_ its organizing
ability. It is hard for me to think of a better way for Albums to
work, and with newer versions of iPhoto, being able to organize by
Face or Place seems invaluable.
So yeah, he might be better served by just sticking with it a bit
longer and learning how it works. Any new piece of software requires
some effort to learn.
Robert Haar
> On 12/17/2009 1:35 AM PT, Calum typed:
>
>> On 17/12/09 07:29, Ant wrote:
>>> Hello!
>>>
>>> One of my clients does not like Apple Mac OS X 10.5.7's iPhoto which is
>>> limited and confusing to him. He doesn't like how albums, layouts, etc.
>>> work. We would like to know if there are better softwares (freeware if
>>> possible) to handle digital pictures/photographs on a MacBook Pro.
>>
>> However, without knowing how many photos your client has, what he wants
>> to do with them, what he doesn't like about iPhoto, and how he'd prefer
>> things to work, it's hard to recommend any alternatives, free or otherwise.
>>
>> (It's also worth noting that iPhoto is deliberatly somewhat 'limited'
>> because it has a big brother in the Apple stable, Aperture, that's aimed
>> more at the professional market.)
>
> He does basic stuff like importing/copying photographs/photos. from his
> digital cameras, keep them in his HDDs, view them, share/upload via
> e-mails and in person, organize, crop/resize, etc. Just basic stuff.
That is precisely what I use iPhoto for and works quite well IMO. My photo
collection contains about 13,000 images so it certainly scaled for casual
use.
As Calum indicated, Aperture is a step up, aimed at the professional user. I
like its workflow for raw processing but I prefer the usability of iPhoto
and start there for almost all tasks.
Iphoto, like many Apple products has its own terminology. But once you get
you head around the concepts, it is fairly powerful. The key part of this is
that all the organizing and cataloging is done within iPhoto. Don't create
file/folder structures outside of iPhoto and expect iPhoto to honor that
structure.
It has a reasonable set of editing functions and has easy ways of publishing
photos. I would ask for elaboration on the kinds of organizing that he want
to do that iPhoto doesn't support?
Steve Hix
Aperture. Not freeware, though.
TaliesinSoft
<0LOdnYCwWLvAw7fW...@earthlink.com>):
Just now I exported from iPhoto a horizontal and vertical version of the same
jpg image. The pixel dimensions were the same and the file sizes were within
a single percentage point of being the same. How would I know if the rotated
image was or not a lossless version of the original?
--
James Leo Ryan --- Austin, Texas --- talies...@me.com
James Dale Guckert
> Hello!
>
> One of my clients does not like Apple Mac OS X 10.5.7's iPhoto which is
> limited and confusing to him. He doesn't like how albums, layouts, etc.
> work. We would like to know if there are better softwares (freeware if
> possible) to handle digital pictures/photographs on a MacBook Pro.
>
I use iPhoto pretty much exclusively to organize and manage photos,
but I recently bought a Canon camera, and I like some of the features
(like Photostitch) that the accompanying software included for which I
couldn't find equivalents in iPhoto. I could see some people using
that program instead, based on one's needs and tastes. I just use both.
erilar
Ant <a...@zimage.comANT> wrote:
> Hello!
>
> One of my clients does not like Apple Mac OS X 10.5.7's iPhoto which is
> limited and confusing to him. He doesn't like how albums, layouts, etc.
> work. We would like to know if there are better softwares (freeware if
> possible) to handle digital pictures/photographs on a MacBook Pro.
>
> Thank you in advance. :)
I disliked it from day 1. However, I had been keeping my fotos in
nested folders previously and just went back to that, including moving
the ones iPhoto had mismanaged. No program as such, just labeled
folders nested within other labeled folders.
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
erilar
Ant <a...@zimage.comANT> wrote:
> He got confused on how to copy
> selected photographs/photos. files to his MacBook Pro. But he needed to
> do an import, not copy like in Windows! And then he got confused on how
> to copy/move imported ones to other places (organizing).
Drag and drop. I plug in my camera, open its memory on the computer,
highlight new additions, drag them to the folder I want them in. From
there I can do as I please, including opening them in a graphics program
that will let me do many times as many things as that grade-school
iPhoto "edit" program. And I'm talking about something a lot cheaper
than PhotoShop.
erilar
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> iPhoto is really is quite good at doing those basic things, IMO.
Just don't try to do any real editing with it!
erilar
Paul Magnussen <magic...@earthlink.net> wrote:
It won't do a lot of things GC will. And ColorIt does even more.
erilar
MC <cope...@mapca.inter.net> wrote:
>
> Graphic Converter is a useful shareware program. It does what it does
> really well.
>
> There's a stripped down version of Photoshop called Photoshop Elements.
> Not sure what it costs but I think it's around $100.
ColorIt! is cheaper and does far more than GC. Having used its earlier
incarnations for years before encountering iPhoto, the latter's "editing
capabilities" really struck me as pitiful.
Jolly Roger
erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
> In article <jollyroger-9E676...@news.individual.net>,
> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > iPhoto is really is quite good at doing those basic things, IMO.
>
> Just don't try to do any real editing with it!
It's not an image editor. It's a photo organizer. Use the right tool for
the job.
Jochem Huhmann
> In article <jollyroger-9E676...@news.individual.net>,
> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> iPhoto is really is quite good at doing those basic things, IMO.
>
> Just don't try to do any real editing with it!
For an photo *organizer* its editing capabilities aren't all that bad,
really. Recent versions do incremental editing, so you can change and
undo your edits at any point later on and for the basic things
(cropping, adjusting colors/brightness/contrast) it works just fine and
comfortable.
Jochem Huhmann
You do know though that you can tell iPhoto to *not* copy photos into
its own folders when importing? It's a simple checkbox in the
preferences. It will then know about the photos and you can use it to do
whatever you want, but it won't move them around at all. But letting it
copy the photos is still much more comfortable.
I hated iPhoto from day one, too. But then I tried it nonetheless and
started to like it. It just takes so much manual work out of the
organizing that most of the time I don't even care about file names and
where the actual photos are. Plug in camera, let iPhoto import the
photos, rate and edit and crop them, drag them out to make a copy if you
want to carry them or edit them elsewhere. Sometimes giving up a bit of
control and let the computer care for all the boring things is exactly
what computers are for, I think.
AES
Robert Haar <bob...@me.com> wrote:
> you head around the concepts, it is fairly powerful. The key part of this is
> that all the organizing and cataloging is done within iPhoto. Don't create
> file/folder structures outside of iPhoto and expect iPhoto to honor that
> structure.
That final sentence encapsulates exactly why iPhoto and, worse, iTunes
are insanely great apps for some people -- indeed all too many people --
and are absolutely and unremittingly hated by other people like me --
although unfortunately there are just not enough of us.
The key aspect of my use of a Mac laptop as the core of my personal and
professional life is precisely a file/folder structure which organizes
all the varying topics (professional projects, hobbies, interests) in
which I'm interested -- a structure which I've created myself, so that I
therefore know exactly how its organized.
If one such topic is Churchill, say, then there's a Churchill folder (or
set of nested folders) into which goes photos of Churchill, audio files
of his speeches, texts of his speeches or writings, essays about him,
audio or video files of seminars or documentaries about Churchill, URLs
linking to web pages about him, bibliographies, maps of his travels,
photos and drawings of Clerkwell, etc., etc., etc.
I don't happen to have such a file on Churchill, but if I did, opening
the topic level folder in the Finder, especially in column view, would
give me a global overview of everything what I had about him and
immediate access to any of it. Dragging that folder onto iView MediaPro
would give me near instantaneously a superb catalog of every bit of
graphic material I had about him (or update an existing catalog). And
any time I encountered a bit of Churchilliana, anywhere, I could
immediate capture it into the right place by just dragging it into the
top level folder and doing the detailed sorting later. All of this,
right in the Finder.
Try that using tools like iPhoto or iTunes.
nospam
<sie...@stanford.edu> wrote:
it works fine. simply disable itunes and iphoto from managing your
media. one click (ok two, since it's two apps).
Steve Hix
<83609bdd-a16c-49e6...@r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
That's just about the only part of Canon's photo software that I have
ever used more than once. Not even that now, since Photoshop Elements 6
does a better job of stitching panoramas.
Steve Hix
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> In article <drache-88E6B2....@nothing.attdns.com>,
> erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In article <jollyroger-9E676...@news.individual.net>,
> > Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> > > iPhoto is really is quite good at doing those basic things, IMO.
> >
> > Just don't try to do any real editing with it!
>
> It's not an image editor. It's a photo organizer. Use the right tool for
> the job.
It even allows for defining something else as your default image editor
in its preferences.
erilar
> The key aspect of my use of a Mac laptop as the core of my personal and
> professional life is precisely a file/folder structure which organizes
> all the varying topics (professional projects, hobbies, interests) in
> which I'm interested -- a structure which I've created myself, so that I
> therefore know exactly how its organized.
I'm sure our folders are totally different, but I use nested folders for
almost everything I want filed, too--with appropriate aliases where
they cross over. 8-)
erilar
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> In article <drache-88E6B2....@nothing.attdns.com>,
> erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In article <jollyroger-9E676...@news.individual.net>,
> > Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> > > iPhoto is really is quite good at doing those basic things, IMO.
> >
> > Just don't try to do any real editing with it!
>
> It's not an image editor. It's a photo organizer. Use the right tool for
> the job.
In my case, iPhoto is also a poor organizer.
erilar
wrote:
> You do know though that you can tell iPhoto to *not* copy photos into
> its own folders when importing?
Yes, someone in this group pointed that out to me long ago and I did
just that.
But letting it
> copy the photos is still much more comfortable.
So much more comfortable than drag and drop them into the folder I
WANT them in??
>
> I hated iPhoto from day one, too. But then I tried it nonetheless and
> started to like it. It just takes so much manual work out of the
> organizing that most of the time I don't even care about file names and
> where the actual photos are. Plug in camera, let iPhoto import the
> photos, rate and edit and crop them, drag them out to make a copy if you
> want to carry them or edit them elsewhere. Sometimes giving up a bit of
> control and let the computer care for all the boring things is exactly
> what computers are for, I think.
That's all very well if the computer does the things you WANT it to do,
which iPhoto does NOT do for me.
Steve Hix
> In article <C74FD9C5.4813B8%bob...@me.com>,
> Robert Haar <bob...@me.com> wrote:
>
> > you head around the concepts, it is fairly powerful. The key part of this is
> > that all the organizing and cataloging is done within iPhoto. Don't create
> > file/folder structures outside of iPhoto and expect iPhoto to honor that
> > structure.
>
> That final sentence encapsulates exactly why iPhoto and, worse, iTunes
> are insanely great apps for some people -- indeed all too many people --
> and are absolutely and unremittingly hated by other people like me --
> although unfortunately there are just not enough of us.
iPhoto '06 -> Preferences -> Advanced -> Importing:
Uncheck "Copy items to the iPhoto Library"
See if that makes any difference.
Wes Groleau
> Ant <a...@zimage.comANT> wrote:
>> One of my clients does not like Apple Mac OS X 10.5.7's iPhoto which is
>> limited and confusing to him. He doesn't like how albums, layouts, etc.
>> work. We would like to know if there are better softwares (freeware if
>> possible) to handle digital pictures/photographs on a MacBook Pro.
>
> really well.
GC is a much better editor than I need. However, it's no better than
iPhoto for organizing.
--
Wes Groleau
The Interconnectedness of Things
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/russell?itemid=1499
Jolly Roger
erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
> In article <jollyroger-302D5...@news.individual.net>,
> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <drache-88E6B2....@nothing.attdns.com>,
> > erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <jollyroger-9E676...@news.individual.net>,
> > > Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > iPhoto is really is quite good at doing those basic things, IMO.
> > >
> > > Just don't try to do any real editing with it!
> >
> > It's not an image editor. It's a photo organizer. Use the right tool for
> > the job.
>
> In my case, iPhoto is also a poor organizer.
How is iPhoto a poor organizer, exactly, in your opinion?
Jolly Roger
erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
> In article <m2ljh1q...@revier.com>, Jochem Huhmann <j...@gmx.net>
> wrote:
>
> > You do know though that you can tell iPhoto to *not* copy photos into
> > its own folders when importing?
> Yes, someone in this group pointed that out to me long ago and I did
> just that.
> But letting it
> > copy the photos is still much more comfortable.
> So much more comfortable than drag and drop them into the folder I
> WANT them in??
iPhoto offers so many better ways to access an manage your photos than a
plain-Jane file system, it's almost funny to me you'd say something like
that. If your mind was open, and you gave iPhoto a real chance, you'd
see that the file system organization you're so strongly holding onto is
much more limited.
> > I hated iPhoto from day one, too. But then I tried it nonetheless and
> > started to like it. It just takes so much manual work out of the
> > organizing that most of the time I don't even care about file names and
> > where the actual photos are. Plug in camera, let iPhoto import the
> > photos, rate and edit and crop them, drag them out to make a copy if you
> > want to carry them or edit them elsewhere. Sometimes giving up a bit of
> > control and let the computer care for all the boring things is exactly
> > what computers are for, I think.
>
> That's all very well if the computer does the things you WANT it to do,
> which iPhoto does NOT do for me.
Like what?
Wes Groleau
(in defense of Finder as a better organizer than iTunes or iPhoto)
> The key aspect of my use of a Mac laptop as the core of my personal and
> professional life is precisely a file/folder structure which organizes
> all the varying topics (professional projects, hobbies, interests) in
> which I'm interested -- a structure which I've created myself, so that I
> therefore know exactly how its organized.
I have to agree. iTunes insists that artists have albums and albums
have songs. Want to keep several versions of the same song together?
Nope. Several artists collaborate on an album? Pick ONE.
Still, for anything complicated, Finder has its problems, too.
Yes, it's great that the user gets to choose his own favorite
hierarchy, but what if I want more than one hierarchy?
Take genealogy for example:
Sometimes, I might want to take a particular time period,
narrow it down geographically, then look at first names.
Another time, I might want the breakdown to be person to
children to grandchildren, to ...
How about a database where one column stores a file/document/image,
and the other columns--definable by the user--store as much metadata
as one wishes? Supported by a Finder/Chooser (generic term) that
allows user-defined views allowing any column to be any level of
a simulated tree.
I use such a tool at work, and although it has some irritations,
that part of it is NICE.
--
Wes Groleau
AV3
> In article<drache-59ABFD....@nothing.attdns.com>,
> erilar<dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In article<jollyroger-302D5...@news.individual.net>,
>> Jolly Roger<jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> In my case, iPhoto is also a poor organizer.
>
> How is iPhoto a poor organizer, exactly, in your opinion?
>
In my opinion, its big problem is how to find a particular picture on
the hard disk. You assign a name to the picture and put it in an album,
but iPhoto stores it in a particular year under a code name. I have
family pictures (for instance) of individuals from every year of my
catalogue, so finding an individual picture depends not on searching but
on opening iPhoto and (in effect) finding the original of an alias. I
would prefer to be able to search directly by my own criteria.
We had a similar discussion about iTunes some time ago. But iTunes is
superior to iPhoto, in that you can search at least by artist and album
names, provided you know the spelling on the imported file. I won't go
into detail, since this is about iPhoto.
--
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++
||Arnold VICTOR, New York City, i. e., <arvi...@Wearthlink.net> ||
||Arnoldo VIKTORO, Nov-jorkurbo, t. e., <arvi...@Wearthlink.net> ||
||Remove capital letters from e-mail address for correct address/ ||
|| Forigu majusklajn literojn el e-poŝta adreso por ĝusta adreso ||
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++
nospam
<arvi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > How is iPhoto a poor organizer, exactly, in your opinion?
>
> In my opinion, its big problem is how to find a particular picture on
> the hard disk. You assign a name to the picture and put it in an album,
> but iPhoto stores it in a particular year under a code name. I have
> family pictures (for instance) of individuals from every year of my
> catalogue, so finding an individual picture depends not on searching but
> on opening iPhoto and (in effect) finding the original of an alias. I
> would prefer to be able to search directly by my own criteria.
that's what keywords are for!
give the photo a bunch of keywords and you can find all related photos,
regardless of what folder they live in. for your family photos, use the
names of the people for keywords (and/or the locations), or just let
iphoto's faces (and places) handle it.
folders are very restrictive and do not scale. that's why so many apps
(not just iphoto) are breaking away from it.
personally, i prefer lightroom over iphoto. it's *far* more flexible
and unlike iphoto, actually supports raw. aperture is also good and
does support raw, but apple is extremely slow in supporting new
cameras. adobe is at least on the ball about updates.
Jolly Roger
> On Dec/17/2009 8:3244 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
> > In article<drache-59ABFD....@nothing.attdns.com>,
> > erilar<dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> In article<jollyroger-302D5...@news.individual.net>,
> >> Jolly Roger<jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> ...
> >>
> >> In my case, iPhoto is also a poor organizer.
> >
> > How is iPhoto a poor organizer, exactly, in your opinion?
>
> In my opinion, its big problem is how to find a particular picture on
> the hard disk. You assign a name to the picture and put it in an album,
> but iPhoto stores it in a particular year under a code name. I have
> family pictures (for instance) of individuals from every year of my
> catalogue, so finding an individual picture depends not on searching but
> on opening iPhoto and (in effect) finding the original of an alias. I
> would prefer to be able to search directly by my own criteria.
>
> We had a similar discussion about iTunes some time ago. But iTunes is
> superior to iPhoto, in that you can search at least by artist and album
> names, provided you know the spelling on the imported file. I won't go
> into detail, since this is about iPhoto.
There's no need to find the file on disk. Open iPhoto, search for the
image you want (by name, keywords, date, whatever), then drag it out (or
share it via email, etc.). Done deal.
Jolly Roger
Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> AES wrote:
> (in defense of Finder as a better organizer than iTunes or iPhoto)
> > The key aspect of my use of a Mac laptop as the core of my personal and
> > professional life is precisely a file/folder structure which organizes
> > all the varying topics (professional projects, hobbies, interests) in
> > which I'm interested -- a structure which I've created myself, so that I
> > therefore know exactly how its organized.
>
> I have to agree. iTunes insists that artists have albums and albums
> have songs. Want to keep several versions of the same song together?
> Nope. Several artists collaborate on an album? Pick ONE.
Couldn't you just as well use the Grouping and Composer fields, or
playlists, for that?
nospam
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > I have to agree. iTunes insists that artists have albums and albums
> > have songs. Want to keep several versions of the same song together?
> > Nope. Several artists collaborate on an album? Pick ONE.
>
> Couldn't you just as well use the Grouping and Composer fields, or
> playlists, for that?
or one of the sort tags.
Steve Hix
> On Dec/17/2009 8:3244 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
> > In article<drache-59ABFD....@nothing.attdns.com>,
> > erilar<dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> In article<jollyroger-302D5...@news.individual.net>,
> >> Jolly Roger<jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> In my case, iPhoto is also a poor organizer.
> >
> > How is iPhoto a poor organizer, exactly, in your opinion?
>
> In my opinion, its big problem is how to find a particular picture on
> the hard disk. You assign a name to the picture and put it in an album,
> but iPhoto stores it in a particular year under a code name. I have
> family pictures (for instance) of individuals from every year of my
> catalogue, so finding an individual picture depends not on searching but
> on opening iPhoto and (in effect) finding the original of an alias. I
> would prefer to be able to search directly by my own criteria.
Keywords.
- Window -> Show Keywords (you can add/delete/edit them there).
- View -> Sort Photos -> By Keyword
Takes a bit to set up initially, but if you keep it up from then on, you
can dig up any given picture in a few seconds.
Steve Hix
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
I've gotten around that problem, at least until Apple caught up with my
camera, by converting RAW to DNG with Adobe's converter. Aperture will
read DNG (RAW DNG, not Linear DNG).
isw
<83609bdd-a16c-49e6...@r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
James Dale Guckert <Dip...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 16, 11:29�pm, Ant <a...@zimage.comANT> wrote:
> > Hello!
> >
> > One of my clients does not like Apple Mac OS X 10.5.7's iPhoto which is
> > limited and confusing to him. He doesn't like how albums, layouts, etc.
> > work. We would like to know if there are better softwares (freeware if
> > possible) to handle digital pictures/photographs on a MacBook Pro.
> >
>
> I use iPhoto pretty much exclusively to organize and manage photos,
> but I recently bought a Canon camera, and I like some of the features
> (like Photostitch) that the accompanying software included for which I
> couldn't find equivalents in iPhoto. I could see some people using
> that program instead, based on one's needs and tastes. I just use both.
For making panoramas, I've used "Hugin" a couple of times. Worked fine,
and is free. It's on SourceForge.
Isaac
isw
> On 12/17/09 10:01 AM, "Ant" <a...@zimage.comANT> wrote:
>
> > On 12/17/2009 1:35 AM PT, Calum typed:
> >
> >> On 17/12/09 07:29, Ant wrote:
> >>> Hello!
> >>>
> >>> One of my clients does not like Apple Mac OS X 10.5.7's iPhoto which is
> >>> limited and confusing to him. He doesn't like how albums, layouts, etc.
> >>> work. We would like to know if there are better softwares (freeware if
> >>> possible) to handle digital pictures/photographs on a MacBook Pro.
>
> >>
> >> However, without knowing how many photos your client has, what he wants
> >> to do with them, what he doesn't like about iPhoto, and how he'd prefer
> >> things to work, it's hard to recommend any alternatives, free or otherwise.
> >>
> >> (It's also worth noting that iPhoto is deliberatly somewhat 'limited'
> >> because it has a big brother in the Apple stable, Aperture, that's aimed
> >> more at the professional market.)
> >
> > He does basic stuff like importing/copying photographs/photos. from his
> > digital cameras, keep them in his HDDs, view them, share/upload via
> > e-mails and in person, organize, crop/resize, etc. Just basic stuff.
>
> That is precisely what I use iPhoto for and works quite well IMO. My photo
> collection contains about 13,000 images so it certainly scaled for casual
> use.
>
> As Calum indicated, Aperture is a step up, aimed at the professional user. I
> like its workflow for raw processing but I prefer the usability of iPhoto
> and start there for almost all tasks.
>
> Iphoto, like many Apple products has its own terminology. But once you get
> you head around the concepts, it is fairly powerful. The key part of this is
> that all the organizing and cataloging is done within iPhoto. Don't create
> file/folder structures outside of iPhoto and expect iPhoto to honor that
> structure.
Of course it will, if you tell it to leave the images where you put them
-- Preferences/Advanced/UNcheck "Copy files to iPhoto Library...".
Then create whatever kind of folder structure you please, put your
photos in them as you please, and *only then* tell iPhoto about them. It
will never move a one of them.
Isaac
isw
erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
> In article <jollyroger-9E676...@news.individual.net>,
> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > iPhoto is really is quite good at doing those basic things, IMO.
>
> Just don't try to do any real editing with it!
There is an easy option to tell it "Use an external editor"; then you
can do "real" editing whenever you want. I used to use Photoshop, but
that broke when I moved to Leopard; now I use GIMP.
Isaac
isw
wrote:
> erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> writes:
>
> > In article <jollyroger-9E676...@news.individual.net>,
> > Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> >> iPhoto is really is quite good at doing those basic things, IMO.
> >
> > Just don't try to do any real editing with it!
>
> For an photo *organizer* its editing capabilities aren't all that bad,
> really. Recent versions do incremental editing, so you can change and
> undo your edits at any point later on and for the basic things
> (cropping, adjusting colors/brightness/contrast) it works just fine and
> comfortable.
The real annoyance I have with iPhoto's editing is that there's no way
to tell it that you *want* to overwrite the original file with the new
version. Doing it the "Apple" way will cause iPhoto to slowly but surely
take away the structure of folders you so carefully created to hold your
images, because it stores the altered versions internally.
There is a pretty easy way around that, but it's annoying to have to do
it.
Isaac
nospam
<i...@witzend.com> wrote:
> > > iPhoto is really is quite good at doing those basic things, IMO.
> >
> > Just don't try to do any real editing with it!
>
> There is an easy option to tell it "Use an external editor"; then you
> can do "real" editing whenever you want.
even with an external app, editing in iphoto is more limited as
compared with something like aperture or lightroom, particularly with
raw.
> I used to use Photoshop, but
> that broke when I moved to Leopard; now I use GIMP.
photoshop did not break in leopard, except perhaps if it was a very old
version.
isw
> On Dec/17/2009 8:3244 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
> > In article<drache-59ABFD....@nothing.attdns.com>,
> > erilar<dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> In article<jollyroger-302D5...@news.individual.net>,
> >> Jolly Roger<jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> ...
> >>
> >> In my case, iPhoto is also a poor organizer.
> >
> > How is iPhoto a poor organizer, exactly, in your opinion?
> >
>
>
> In my opinion, its big problem is how to find a particular picture on
> the hard disk. You assign a name to the picture and put it in an album,
> but iPhoto stores it in a particular year under a code name. I have
> family pictures (for instance) of individuals from every year of my
> catalogue, so finding an individual picture depends not on searching but
> on opening iPhoto and (in effect) finding the original of an alias. I
> would prefer to be able to search directly by my own criteria.
Even though I don't let iPhoto store my images where it pleases, I still
value its organizing functions; albums let your images "be" in more than
one place. And once you find a photo in iPhoto, it's one click to locate
the file. Are you saying that you can't set up the search criteria in
iPhoto to do what you can do in Finder? Got an example?
Isaac
nospam
<i...@witzend.com> wrote:
> The real annoyance I have with iPhoto's editing is that there's no way
> to tell it that you *want* to overwrite the original file with the new
> version.
why would you ever want to do that? the original file should be
considered to be a digital negative, never to be modified, ever.
since it tracks the changes, you always have the latest version.
non-destructive editing is a feature.
> Doing it the "Apple" way will cause iPhoto to slowly but surely
> take away the structure of folders you so carefully created to hold your
> images, because it stores the altered versions internally.
the 'apple' way is a very good way, and one which many other companies
use, including adobe.
> There is a pretty easy way around that, but it's annoying to have to do
> it.
why bother?
isw
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <hgenvp$h29$1...@news.albasani.net>, AV3
> <arvi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > How is iPhoto a poor organizer, exactly, in your opinion?
> >
> > In my opinion, its big problem is how to find a particular picture on
> > the hard disk. You assign a name to the picture and put it in an album,
> > but iPhoto stores it in a particular year under a code name. I have
> > family pictures (for instance) of individuals from every year of my
> > catalogue, so finding an individual picture depends not on searching but
> > on opening iPhoto and (in effect) finding the original of an alias. I
> > would prefer to be able to search directly by my own criteria.
>
> that's what keywords are for!
>
> give the photo a bunch of keywords and you can find all related photos,
> regardless of what folder they live in. for your family photos, use the
> names of the people for keywords (and/or the locations), or just let
> iphoto's faces (and places) handle it.
>
> folders are very restrictive and do not scale. that's why so many apps
> (not just iphoto) are breaking away from it.
I do agree, but one of the things I'm doing is organizing a *bunch* of
old family photos, to pass on to my kids. As long as they have Macs
*that support iPhoto*, things will work fine, but *what do you do in a
Macless world* - say, towards the end of the kids' lifetimes? Me, I
can't think of anything better than giving the image files significant
names, and organizing them into folders. It'll be a long, long time
before there are no JPEG viewers...
Isaac
Robert Haar
If you edit one of the photos,where does the edited version go?
I have yet to find any organizing need that iPhoto does not support easily.
When I import a set of photos, they are automatically group by date. I then
combine/split the date groups into events. I also put the photos in to
albums for family members who are in the pictures. Where I might want to
further organization, I add key words. I have also tried the face
recognition. It is fairly good but takes some training and does not seem to
handle the changes that come along with aging from infant to teenager very
well.
isw
TaliesinSoft <talies...@me.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:37:51 -0600, Paul Magnussen wrote (in article
> <0LOdnYCwWLvAw7fW...@earthlink.com>):
>
> > Jolly Roger wrote:
> >
> >> iPhoto is really is quite good at doing those basic things, IMO.
> >
> > But (as I understand) it won't do a lossless rotate of a JPEG, which
> > GraphicConverter will.
>
> Just now I exported from iPhoto a horizontal and vertical version of the same
> jpg image. The pixel dimensions were the same and the file sizes were within
> a single percentage point of being the same. How would I know if the rotated
> image was or not a lossless version of the original?
Um, if you can't tell by looking (zooming,...), why does it matter? The
JPEG algorithm is lossy (in some sense) to begin with; that's how it
produces smaller files.
Isaac
isw
Doug Anderson <ethelthelo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ant <a...@zimage.comANT> writes:
>
> > On 12/17/2009 7:32 AM PT, Jolly Roger typed:
> >
> > >> He does basic stuff like importing/copying photographs/photos. from his
> > >> digital cameras, keep them in his HDDs, view them, share/upload via
> > >> e-mails and in person, organize, crop/resize, etc. Just basic stuff.
> > >
> > > iPhoto is really is quite good at doing those basic things, IMO.
> >
> > Yeah, I agree. He was all confused on how to organize, import, manual
> > copy, etc. with iPhoto. Oh well. I was hoping there was something
> > easier and better. I guess not.
>
> There might be things that would be easier for him, depending on how
> he thinks these things ought to work.
>
> iPhoto does drag and drop - e.g. you drag a picture (or a folder full
> of pictures) to the iPhoto icon (or to an open iPhoto application
> window) and that copies them into iPhoto, right? Some people think
> that is really easy and good. If your friend has a different idea
> about how things work, something else might be better for him.
>
> But it is true that when copying pictures from a camera, one probably
> wants to do the "import" thing (though dragging and dropping often
> works there too).
>
> The thing I think is iPhoto's big strength though _is_ its organizing
> ability. It is hard for me to think of a better way for Albums to
> work, and with newer versions of iPhoto, being able to organize by
> Face or Place seems invaluable.
It would be very nice if, when you were looking at a particular image in
a certain album, you could say "Show me all the albums this image in."
Isaac
Robert Haar
> It would be very nice if, when you were looking at a particular image in
> a certain album, you could say "Show me all the albums this image in."
That does sound useful. Have you submitted a suggestion for this?
nospam
<i...@witzend.com> wrote:
> > give the photo a bunch of keywords and you can find all related photos,
> > regardless of what folder they live in. for your family photos, use the
> > names of the people for keywords (and/or the locations), or just let
> > iphoto's faces (and places) handle it.
> >
> > folders are very restrictive and do not scale. that's why so many apps
> > (not just iphoto) are breaking away from it.
>
> I do agree, but one of the things I'm doing is organizing a *bunch* of
> old family photos, to pass on to my kids. As long as they have Macs
> *that support iPhoto*, things will work fine, but *what do you do in a
> Macless world* - say, towards the end of the kids' lifetimes? Me, I
> can't think of anything better than giving the image files significant
> names, and organizing them into folders. It'll be a long, long time
> before there are no JPEG viewers...
write the metadata into the file using standard tags and then anything
can read it. i don't know if iphoto supports that but other apps
certainly do.
Jochem Huhmann
>> But letting it copy the photos is still much more comfortable.
> So much more comfortable than drag and drop them into the folder I
> WANT them in??
Yeah, because then you don't have to look for the right folder or create
one and select all the photos from the camera and drag them over. You
just plug the thing in and be done with it.
>> I hated iPhoto from day one, too. But then I tried it nonetheless and
>> started to like it. It just takes so much manual work out of the
>> organizing that most of the time I don't even care about file names and
>> where the actual photos are. Plug in camera, let iPhoto import the
>> photos, rate and edit and crop them, drag them out to make a copy if you
>> want to carry them or edit them elsewhere. Sometimes giving up a bit of
>> control and let the computer care for all the boring things is exactly
>> what computers are for, I think.
>
> That's all very well if the computer does the things you WANT it to do,
> which iPhoto does NOT do for me.
May be. On the other hand there is a bad habit called "micromanaging"
or "being unable to delegate" which is the curse of all people who are
too clever for their own good... Hand-holding every bit of data is as
useless and time-wasting as micromanaging a good butler.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromanagement
"In contrast to giving general instructions on smaller tasks while
supervising larger concerns, the micromanager monitors and assesses
every step and avoids delegation of decisions.[5] Micromanagement is
often easily recognized by employees, but micromanagers rarely view
themselves as such. Micromanagers will also refute such claims by citing
their management style as structured or organizational; this is part of
the denial process."
Never mind,
Jochem
--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Clive Sinclair
> Hello!
>
> One of my clients does not like Apple Mac OS X 10.5.7's iPhoto which is
> limited and confusing to him. He doesn't like how albums, layouts, etc.
> work. We would like to know if there are better softwares (freeware if
> possible) to handle digital pictures/photographs on a MacBook Pro.
>
iPhoto is pretty simple to use. OK, it's not the greatest photo
organiser in the world, but if you want better, then it generally means
more features and likely to be more complicated.
If iPhoto is confusing him, then he needs to take time to learn it.
--
Clive
We don't die, we just stop paying taxes.
AV3
No, I'm saying that opening iPhoto to search for the individual photo is
one step more than I would like to have to take. I wish the photo was
filed under the title I gave it, so I could just find it on the hard
disk by that title. I could have given each photo a keyword identical to
its name at the time I named it, but by now I have more than a thousand
photos to go back and assign each its keyword/name.
Note that I originally said that my objection concerned searching on the
hard disk and that iTunes made such a search easier by naming its files
according to artist and album name.
AES
isw <i...@witzend.com> wrote:
>
> The real annoyance I have with iPhoto's editing is that there's no way
> to tell it that you *want* to overwrite the original file with the new
> version. Doing it the "Apple" way will cause iPhoto to slowly but surely
> take away the structure of folders you so carefully created to hold your
> images, because it stores the altered versions internally.
>
Can one have multiple, independent (differently named) iPhoto catalogs
-- for example smaller catalogs of the graphics files in certain folders
or nested folder trees, and a master catalog of all the graphics files
on your HD?
P.S. -- The string "catalog" does not appear _anywhere_ in the 30-page
Getting Starting document for iPhoto; and yields zero hits in iPhoto
Help -- and ditto for iTunes. Seems to me this can't be just
accidental; it has to be a sternly enforced Apple policy.
So, why is Apple determined to, not just muddy, but apparently destroy
the long-standing distinction between a "library" and a "library
catalog"? Our language, our public discourse, and our ability to use
meaningful words deteriorates fast enough, pushed by the journalistic
(and political) standards of the day. Why is Apple aggressively pushing
this particular example of this deterioration?
AES
isw <i...@witzend.com> wrote:
> Are you saying that you can't set up the search criteria in
> iPhoto to do what you can do in Finder? Got an example?
Why should I have to _search_ at all, in either case?
If I have _all_ my Churchill-related files (fotos, images, graphics,
audio files, text files, videos, weblocs, PDFs, etc) in subfolders in a
folder tree with a Churchill label at the top (cf. earlier post), I can:
* Instantly _see_ everything I have on that topic;
* Instantly grab, access, move, open, or edit anything and everything I
have on that topic, straight from the Finder;
* Instantly back up everything I have on that topic, in one shot;
* Instantly write a CD containing everything I have on that topic
(maybe to send to a colleague);
* And instantly dump new or in coming content into that structure any
time I create it (using some app) or encounter it (on the web, in an
incoming email, from a scanner);
All this using nothing but the Finder and the Desktop -- which any Mac
user needs to understand and use anyway; which are superb tools for this
purpose; and which are long-term stable and have a long-term stable
interface.
The model that Apple has adopted for iTunes and iPhoto is unhelpful,
unnecessary, and even actively destructive -- and, of course, immensely
popular. Sad.
nospam
<arvi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> No, I'm saying that opening iPhoto to search for the individual photo is
> one step more than I would like to have to take.
leave it running.
> I wish the photo was
> filed under the title I gave it, so I could just find it on the hard
> disk by that title.
your photos can be any title you want it to be and in any folder you
want. iphoto doesn't care.
> I could have given each photo a keyword identical to
> its name at the time I named it, but by now I have more than a thousand
> photos to go back and assign each its keyword/name.
true, adding keywords to existing files is a pain, but going forward
it's trivial, especially since it can be done when you import.
> Note that I originally said that my objection concerned searching on the
> hard disk and that iTunes made such a search easier by naming its files
> according to artist and album name.
only if itunes is configured to rename them. that is also not a
requirement.
nospam
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> > > There is an easy option to tell it "Use an external editor"; then you
> > > can do "real" editing whenever you want.
> >
> > even with an external app, editing in iphoto is more limited as compared
> > with something like aperture or lightroom, particularly with raw.
>
> So you set the external app to Lightroom or Aperture.
that won't work.
nospam
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> But how does iPhoto not support raw?
because iphoto makes a default conversion to jpeg and all the
adjustments are then done on the jpeg, not on the raw.
you can make a default conversion to jpeg in the camera, and likely a
better one since the camera maker knows more about the sensor than
apple does, assuming apple even gets around to supporting the camera.
it took them 5 months for the nikon d300s & d3000, for instance.
nospam
<sie...@stanford.edu> wrote:
> Can one have multiple, independent (differently named) iPhoto catalogs
> -- for example smaller catalogs of the graphics files in certain folders
> or nested folder trees, and a master catalog of all the graphics files
> on your HD?
yes
> P.S. -- The string "catalog" does not appear _anywhere_ in the 30-page
> Getting Starting document for iPhoto; and yields zero hits in iPhoto
> Help -- and ditto for iTunes. Seems to me this can't be just
> accidental; it has to be a sternly enforced Apple policy.
what difference does that make?
> So, why is Apple determined to, not just muddy, but apparently destroy
> the long-standing distinction between a "library" and a "library
> catalog"? Our language, our public discourse, and our ability to use
> meaningful words deteriorates fast enough, pushed by the journalistic
> (and political) standards of the day. Why is Apple aggressively pushing
> this particular example of this deterioration?
does the term 'grasping at straws' mean anything?
Andy Hewitt
> In article <michelle-751E3B...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
>
> > But how does iPhoto not support raw?
>
> because iphoto makes a default conversion to jpeg and all the
> adjustments are then done on the jpeg, not on the raw.
That's not actually correct.
It applies adjustments to the Raw image, and creates a JPG preview based
on that. Each time you re-edit, it will make a new JPG preview image.
--
Andy Hewitt
<http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/>
nospam
<thewil...@me.com> wrote:
> > > But how does iPhoto not support raw?
> >
> > because iphoto makes a default conversion to jpeg and all the
> > adjustments are then done on the jpeg, not on the raw.
>
> That's not actually correct.
>
> It applies adjustments to the Raw image, and creates a JPG preview based
> on that. Each time you re-edit, it will make a new JPG preview image.
no it doesn't. once it's jpeg, the raw is excess baggage unless you
revert to original, discarding *everything*. however, it does appear
that the very first edit is on the raw. any subsequent edit, no matter
how slight, is on the jpeg.
with lightroom or aperture, you are *always* working from the raw. the
only time you have a jpeg (or other format) is when you export to
another app, email, make a book or web page, etc.
isw
Robert Haar <bob...@me.com> wrote:
Actually, I have a sort-of-hacked AppleScript that does it, but it's
very slow, and I'm not sure how it would work for others. (I am not an
AppleScript expert and I do not play one on TV).
Isaac
isw
AES <sie...@stanford.edu> wrote:
How do you handle files that belong in more than one place? Say, a photo
of both Churchill and Roosevelt, when you have folder structures
dedicated to both?
Isaac
isw
AV3 <arvi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Well, that is precisely how I name and organize my photos, and I still
use iPhoto to manage them.
> I could have given each photo a keyword identical to
> its name at the time I named it, but by now I have more than a thousand
> photos to go back and assign each its keyword/name.
I had a few hundred images on the Mac before iPhoto came along, too,
which is why I figured out how to make it leave my files where I had put
them.
> Note that I originally said that my objection concerned searching on the
> hard disk and that iTunes made such a search easier by naming its files
> according to artist and album name.
If you can remember the name of a file, you can let Finder get it pretty
quickly, but if you can't, then scrolling through images with iPhoto and
clicking to locate it is pretty fast. Plus, for doing things like
attaching images to email (with scaling to fit), iPhoto has Finder beat
all hollow.
Isaac
isw
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <hgg943$uqe$1...@news.albasani.net>, AV3
> <arvi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > No, I'm saying that opening iPhoto to search for the individual photo is
> > one step more than I would like to have to take.
>
> leave it running.
Well, that brings up an annoying "feature" of iPhoto; it's one of those
apps that automatically quits when you close its window. So leaving it
running means always having to look at it (yes, I know about the yellow
button; I don't like doing that).
Which reminds me of another of its "features", that you cannot have more
than one window open at the time. Most apps allow you to have multiple
documents open (in iPhoto, multiple libraries), and even allow you to
have two instances of the same document open simultaneously. That would
be handy for organizing and managing images, and which albums they are
members of.
Isaac
MC
Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> GC is a much better editor than I need. However, it's no better than
> iPhoto for organizing.
I organize using the Finder filing capabilities. I create folders and
subfolders and put graphics files or aliases into them, then use Graphic
Converter to browse the files...
--
"If you can, tell me something happy."
- Marybones
Andy Hewitt
> In article <1jaxjdc.182h3ll1q13mynN%thewil...@me.com>, Andy Hewitt
> <thewil...@me.com> wrote:
>
> > > > But how does iPhoto not support raw?
> > >
> > > because iphoto makes a default conversion to jpeg and all the
> > > adjustments are then done on the jpeg, not on the raw.
> >
> > That's not actually correct.
> >
> > It applies adjustments to the Raw image, and creates a JPG preview based
> > on that. Each time you re-edit, it will make a new JPG preview image.
>
> no it doesn't. once it's jpeg, the raw is excess baggage unless you
> revert to original, discarding *everything*. however, it does appear
> that the very first edit is on the raw. any subsequent edit, no matter
> how slight, is on the jpeg.
From the iPhoto manual:
"When you reopen your edited photo to view or do more work, iPhoto then
reapplies those edits to the original version. You see where you left
off, so you can make incremental changes from there."
> with lightroom or aperture, you are *always* working from the raw. the
> only time you have a jpeg (or other format) is when you export to
> another app, email, make a book or web page, etc.
Not completely. Aperture also creates a JPG Preview image, which is also
recreated if you make any changes to the edits. You can of course turn
off Previews in Aperture, it will then apply the edits real-time to the
original, but that can slow things up, and may not necessarily result in
a better image on screen.
nospam
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> > > But how does iPhoto not support raw?
> >
> > because iphoto makes a default conversion to jpeg and all the
> > adjustments are then done on the jpeg, not on the raw.
>
> To me, that is a good thing. The RAW file is akin to a negative; I don't
> want it messed with. I want to keep my original file pristine.
it's not messed with.
lightroom and aperture maintain a list of changes done to the raw and
apply them when needed. the raw is never touched. you can undo or
change any of the steps, even re-crop an image after the fact. if you
change the colour balance or exposure, it just updates the parameters
in the raw conversion.
it's completely non-destructive.
you can even have multiple versions of one image without needing to
have duplicate images - it just keeps a different set of adjustments.
it's a virtual copy.
the problem with iphoto is that it converts to jpeg early on, and is
therefore destructive.
Steve Hix
isw <i...@witzend.com> wrote:
> In article <171220092132311911%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In article <hgenvp$h29$1...@news.albasani.net>, AV3
> > <arvi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > How is iPhoto a poor organizer, exactly, in your opinion?
> > >
> > > In my opinion, its big problem is how to find a particular picture on
> > > the hard disk. You assign a name to the picture and put it in an album,
> > > but iPhoto stores it in a particular year under a code name. I have
> > > family pictures (for instance) of individuals from every year of my
> > > catalogue, so finding an individual picture depends not on searching but
> > > on opening iPhoto and (in effect) finding the original of an alias. I
> > > would prefer to be able to search directly by my own criteria.
> >
> > that's what keywords are for!
> >
> > give the photo a bunch of keywords and you can find all related photos,
> > regardless of what folder they live in. for your family photos, use the
> > names of the people for keywords (and/or the locations), or just let
> > iphoto's faces (and places) handle it.
> >
> > folders are very restrictive and do not scale. that's why so many apps
> > (not just iphoto) are breaking away from it.
>
> I do agree, but one of the things I'm doing is organizing a *bunch* of
> old family photos, to pass on to my kids. As long as they have Macs
> *that support iPhoto*, things will work fine, but *what do you do in a
> Macless world* - say, towards the end of the kids' lifetimes? Me, I
> can't think of anything better than giving the image files significant
> names, and organizing them into folders. It'll be a long, long time
> before there are no JPEG viewers...
>
> Isaac
You could sort on keyword(s), and export the pictures to wherever you
want in any of a number of file formats.
And your originals are still untouched.
isw
> In article <isw-88C30B.21533317122009@[216.168.3.50]>,
> isw <i...@witzend.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > The real annoyance I have with iPhoto's editing is that there's no way
> > to tell it that you *want* to overwrite the original file with the new
> > version. Doing it the "Apple" way will cause iPhoto to slowly but surely
> > take away the structure of folders you so carefully created to hold your
> > images, because it stores the altered versions internally.
> >
>
> Can one have multiple, independent (differently named) iPhoto catalogs
> -- for example smaller catalogs of the graphics files in certain folders
> or nested folder trees
Yes. iPhoto supports multiple libraries (as it calls them).
> and a master catalog of all the graphics files
> on your HD?
AFAIK, if you have multiple libraries, they are totally independent
(though IF you do not allow iPhoto to manage them, but store your images
externally, then the same image can be a member of multiple libraries).
So you could certainly have two "minor" libraries which were
independent, and a "major" library which comprised all the images in
both "minor" libraries. But it sounds like what you'd like is when an
image got added to one of the "minor" ones, it automatically showed up
in the "major" one; that does not happen.
> P.S. -- The string "catalog" does not appear _anywhere_ in the 30-page
> Getting Starting document for iPhoto; and yields zero hits in iPhoto
> Help -- and ditto for iTunes. Seems to me this can't be just
> accidental; it has to be a sternly enforced Apple policy.
>
> So, why is Apple determined to, not just muddy, but apparently destroy
> the long-standing distinction between a "library" and a "library
> catalog"? Our language, our public discourse, and our ability to use
> meaningful words deteriorates fast enough, pushed by the journalistic
> (and political) standards of the day. Why is Apple aggressively pushing
> this particular example of this deterioration?
I have a feeling that Apple did not view individuals who spend a lot of
their time looking through libraries *or* library catalogs as their main
target for iPhoto.
Isaac
Ian Gregory
On 2009-12-18, AES <sie...@stanford.edu> wrote:
> All this using nothing but the Finder and the Desktop -- which any Mac
> user needs to understand and use anyway; which are superb tools for
> this purpose; and which are long-term stable and have a long-term
> stable interface.
Your argument seems to be that a filesystem makes for a good general
purpose "database" system. Certainly it is a ubiquitous method of
organising files in a hierarchy, but that can be very limiting.
Take the idea of an address book for example. Why not just put vCard
files (with names like "Joe Blogs.vcf) for all your contacts into a
folder, perhaps organised into subfolders for "kin", "friends",
"enemies" etc? One obvious problem is what to with a card for an enemy
you are related to:-)
Much better to forget about shoehorning them into a directory tree and
enter them into a database - like the Address Book application. There
you can easily create groups for "kin" and "enemies" and put your
nemesis in both. Plus there is a huge amount of extra functionality you
get, and you can still export vCards if you need to.
I don't suppose there are many people who would argue with the above.
So then the question is, are music and image files best treated as
general files or is it better to organise them using custom database
type applications?
The complication is that iPhoto and iTunes are designed to act like
databases but the objects being stored (mp3s, jpegs etc) are still
actually stored as files in the filesystem. However, the apps are
designed to abstract that away - the user shouldn't have to care about
where the files are, what they are called, or even whether they are
actually stored as files at all. As long as they can stick new photos or
songs in there and easily access what they want when they want it.
I find that iTunes and iPhoto both work very efficiently and I have
never worried about what is happening behind the scenes. Of course, it
does lock you in a bit, due to the effort it would require to migrate to
and learn an alternative app should you become dissatisfied with iTunes
or iPhoto - but that hasn't happened for me.
Ian
--
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/
Steve Hix
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <isw-CD1D10.22043217122009@[216.168.3.50]>, isw
> <i...@witzend.com> wrote:
>
> > > give the photo a bunch of keywords and you can find all related photos,
> > > regardless of what folder they live in. for your family photos, use the
> > > names of the people for keywords (and/or the locations), or just let
> > > iphoto's faces (and places) handle it.
> > >
> > > folders are very restrictive and do not scale. that's why so many apps
> > > (not just iphoto) are breaking away from it.
> >
> > I do agree, but one of the things I'm doing is organizing a *bunch* of
> > old family photos, to pass on to my kids. As long as they have Macs
> > *that support iPhoto*, things will work fine, but *what do you do in a
> > Macless world* - say, towards the end of the kids' lifetimes? Me, I
> > can't think of anything better than giving the image files significant
> > names, and organizing them into folders. It'll be a long, long time
> > before there are no JPEG viewers...
>
> write the metadata into the file using standard tags and then anything
> can read it. i don't know if iphoto supports that but other apps
> certainly do.
It does.
Steve Hix
> In article <isw-881AE7.21592617122009@[216.168.3.50]>,
> isw <i...@witzend.com> wrote:
>
> > Are you saying that you can't set up the search criteria in
> > iPhoto to do what you can do in Finder? Got an example?
>
> Why should I have to _search_ at all, in either case?
Because its a better approach to handling more than a trivial number of
things?
One might as well ask why database systems support search and query
functions.
Steve Hix
thewil...@me.com (Andy Hewitt) wrote:
> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In article <michelle-751E3B...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> >
> > > But how does iPhoto not support raw?
> >
> > because iphoto makes a default conversion to jpeg and all the
> > adjustments are then done on the jpeg, not on the raw.
>
> That's not actually correct.
>
> It applies adjustments to the Raw image,
Even better, it builds a list of operations to be done to create an
output file based on the RAW image; the RAW file itself is never touched.
isw
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <isw-88C30B.21533317122009@[216.168.3.50]>, isw
> <i...@witzend.com> wrote:
>
> > The real annoyance I have with iPhoto's editing is that there's no way
> > to tell it that you *want* to overwrite the original file with the new
> > version.
>
> why would you ever want to do that? the original file should be
> considered to be a digital negative, never to be modified, ever.
Because I do not choose to view them that way. My "originals" are off on
a DVD somewhere, untouchable by iPhoto.
> since it tracks the changes, you always have the latest version.
>
> non-destructive editing is a feature.
A feature which causes you to lose control of where your images really
are, and which causes your image library to grow in size every time you
make an edit.
But worst of all, if at some time in the future you do not have access
to iPhoto but you do have your photo library, there's simply no way to
know which files exist as edited versions, short of poking around inside
iPhoto's library, in the "Modified" folder. My way, the latest version
is always right where I put it.
> > Doing it the "Apple" way will cause iPhoto to slowly but surely
> > take away the structure of folders you so carefully created to hold your
> > images, because it stores the altered versions internally.
>
> the 'apple' way is a very good way, and one which many other companies
> use, including adobe.
Which does not oblige me also to think it is a "good way".
> > There is a pretty easy way around that, but it's annoying to have to do
> > it.
>
> why bother?
Because I do not like to lose control of where my edited images are.
Which is mostly the reason I set iPhoto up to leave my images where I
put them in the first place. I want to know where they are at all times.
Isaac
nospam
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> > > So you set the external app to Lightroom or Aperture.
> >
> > that won't work.
>
> Why?
because the way round-tripping to an external editor works is by
creating a intermediate file which the external editor modifies and the
changes are then saved back to the file. the originating application
then tracks that new file.
lightroom and aperture don't 'save' a file the way that photoshop or
other image editor does. they're a combination asset management, image
editor and webpage/print/book/etc. creation utility. the original image
is not modified, and it creates jpegs, tiffs, etc, based on various
settings. you can't just give it an file and get back a result saved to
that same file.
nospam
<thewil...@me.com> wrote:
> From the iPhoto manual:
>
> "When you reopen your edited photo to view or do more work, iPhoto then
> reapplies those edits to the original version. You see where you left
> off, so you can make incremental changes from there."
that doesn't say anything about raw. what iphoto does is make a jpeg
when you import. however, there does seem to be conflicting information
whether the *first* edit is on the raw or on the converted jpeg. if you
ever make a change, it's on the jpeg.
> > with lightroom or aperture, you are *always* working from the raw. the
> > only time you have a jpeg (or other format) is when you export to
> > another app, email, make a book or web page, etc.
>
> Not completely. Aperture also creates a JPG Preview image, which is also
> recreated if you make any changes to the edits. You can of course turn
> off Previews in Aperture, it will then apply the edits real-time to the
> original, but that can slow things up, and may not necessarily result in
> a better image on screen.
aperture and lightroom are *always* working off the raw. the jpeg
preview is *only* for speed on screen. any adjustments made will update
the change list that is applied to the raw and the preview will be
regenerated.
when you actually want to do something with an image, such as print,
email, make a book, etc., the image is exported after applying all
adjustments for that particular image.
isw
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <isw-0E4509.21500417122009@[216.168.3.50]>, isw
> <i...@witzend.com> wrote:
>
> > > > iPhoto is really is quite good at doing those basic things, IMO.
> > >
> > > Just don't try to do any real editing with it!
> >
> > There is an easy option to tell it "Use an external editor"; then you
> > can do "real" editing whenever you want.
>
> even with an external app, editing in iphoto is more limited as
> compared with something like aperture or lightroom, particularly with
> raw.
>
> > I used to use Photoshop, but
> > that broke when I moved to Leopard; now I use GIMP.
>
> photoshop did not break in leopard, except perhaps if it was a very old
> version.
Version 7; and it most certainly broke. Old or not, it's what I had, and
it did everything I wanted to do.
Isaac
nospam
<i...@witzend.com> wrote:
> > > No, I'm saying that opening iPhoto to search for the individual photo is
> > > one step more than I would like to have to take.
> >
> > leave it running.
>
> Well, that brings up an annoying "feature" of iPhoto; it's one of those
> apps that automatically quits when you close its window. So leaving it
> running means always having to look at it (yes, I know about the yellow
> button; I don't like doing that).
you can also hide it.
are you also annoyed that you need to launch itunes to find a song? or
launch address book to find a name/phone number? or launch an email app
to find an email?
> Which reminds me of another of its "features", that you cannot have more
> than one window open at the time. Most apps allow you to have multiple
> documents open (in iPhoto, multiple libraries), and even allow you to
> have two instances of the same document open simultaneously. That would
> be handy for organizing and managing images, and which albums they are
> members of.
most people don't have multiple libraries, let alone want to have two
open at once.
it's very easy to split up the photos within one library, and because
one image can be in multiple categories, it's significantly more
flexible.
Jolly Roger
isw <i...@witzend.com> wrote:
> In article <181220090056058338%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In article <isw-0E4509.21500417122009@[216.168.3.50]>, isw
> > <i...@witzend.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > iPhoto is really is quite good at doing those basic things, IMO.
> > > >
> > > > Just don't try to do any real editing with it!
> > >
> > > There is an easy option to tell it "Use an external editor"; then you
> > > can do "real" editing whenever you want.
> >
> > even with an external app, editing in iphoto is more limited as
> > compared with something like aperture or lightroom, particularly with
> > raw.
> >
> > > I used to use Photoshop, but
> > > that broke when I moved to Leopard; now I use GIMP.
> >
> > photoshop did not break in leopard, except perhaps if it was a very old
> > version.
>
> Version 7; and it most certainly broke. Old or not, it's what I had, and
> it did everything I wanted to do.
Until it didn't. : D
--
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.
JR
isw
Robert Haar <bob...@me.com> wrote:
> On 12/18/09 12:46 AM, "isw" <i...@witzend.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <C74FD9C5.4813B8%bob...@me.com>,
> > Robert Haar <bob...@me.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 12/17/09 10:01 AM, "Ant" <a...@zimage.comANT> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 12/17/2009 1:35 AM PT, Calum typed:
> >>>
> >>>> On 17/12/09 07:29, Ant wrote:
> >>>>> Hello!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> One of my clients does not like Apple Mac OS X 10.5.7's iPhoto which is
> >>>>> limited and confusing to him. He doesn't like how albums, layouts, etc.
> >>>>> work. We would like to know if there are better softwares (freeware if
> >>>>> possible) to handle digital pictures/photographs on a MacBook Pro.
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> However, without knowing how many photos your client has, what he wants
> >>>> to do with them, what he doesn't like about iPhoto, and how he'd prefer
> >>>> things to work, it's hard to recommend any alternatives, free or
> >>>> otherwise.
> >>>>
> >>>> (It's also worth noting that iPhoto is deliberatly somewhat 'limited'
> >>>> because it has a big brother in the Apple stable, Aperture, that's aimed
> >>>> more at the professional market.)
> >>>
> >>> He does basic stuff like importing/copying photographs/photos. from his
> >>> digital cameras, keep them in his HDDs, view them, share/upload via
> >>> e-mails and in person, organize, crop/resize, etc. Just basic stuff.
> >>
> >> That is precisely what I use iPhoto for and works quite well IMO. My photo
> >> collection contains about 13,000 images so it certainly scaled for casual
> >> use.
> >>
> >> As Calum indicated, Aperture is a step up, aimed at the professional user.
> >> I
> >> like its workflow for raw processing but I prefer the usability of iPhoto
> >> and start there for almost all tasks.
> >>
> >> Iphoto, like many Apple products has its own terminology. But once you get
> >> you head around the concepts, it is fairly powerful. The key part of this
> >> is
> >> that all the organizing and cataloging is done within iPhoto. Don't create
> >> file/folder structures outside of iPhoto and expect iPhoto to honor that
> >> structure.
> >
> > Of course it will, if you tell it to leave the images where you put them
> > -- Preferences/Advanced/UNcheck "Copy files to iPhoto Library...".
> >
> > Then create whatever kind of folder structure you please, put your
> > photos in them as you please, and *only then* tell iPhoto about them. It
> > will never move a one of them.
>
>
> If you edit one of the photos,where does the edited version go?
As I mentioned in another post, that is one of iPhoto's "features" that
I really do not care for.
Here's what I do:
IF I edit from within iPhoto, after I'm done, I reach into the
"Modified" folder in iPhoto's library, get the edited version, and drag
it to where the original was stored, replacing it. Then I select the
image from within iPhoto and tell it "Revert to Original" (which is
actually the edited version).
Alternately (and I *think* this is true; I've done it a few times), if
you just ignore iPhoto and grab the original and hand it to GIMP or
Photoshop, then the edited version will replace the original and iPhoto
will never know the difference. Although the thumbnails will be of the
old version until you do a rebuild. Note: *This only works with an
external library*.
> I have yet to find any organizing need that iPhoto does not support easily.
I agree. I value iPhoto for its organizational abilities.
Isaac
Jolly Roger
isw <i...@witzend.com> wrote:
> Because I do not like to lose control
It seems that pretty much sums up the core reason why most every person
I've observed refuses to use iPhoto.
nospam
<i...@witzend.com> wrote:
> > > The real annoyance I have with iPhoto's editing is that there's no way
> > > to tell it that you *want* to overwrite the original file with the new
> > > version.
> >
> > why would you ever want to do that? the original file should be
> > considered to be a digital negative, never to be modified, ever.
>
> Because I do not choose to view them that way. My "originals" are off on
> a DVD somewhere, untouchable by iPhoto.
that's fine, iphoto can keep a preview.
> > since it tracks the changes, you always have the latest version.
> >
> > non-destructive editing is a feature.
>
> A feature which causes you to lose control of where your images really
> are, and which causes your image library to grow in size every time you
> make an edit.
it doesn't cause a loss of control. quite the opposite, in fact. see
below.
> But worst of all, if at some time in the future you do not have access
> to iPhoto but you do have your photo library, there's simply no way to
> know which files exist as edited versions, short of poking around inside
> iPhoto's library, in the "Modified" folder. My way, the latest version
> is always right where I put it.
although it's true that there is a reliance on an app, whether it's
iphoto or lightroom or something else, manually remembering where
photos are does not scale. it might work for a few thousand photos, but
can you realistically remember where a particular photo out of tens of
thousands of photos?
more importantly, you can form queries that can't be done any other
way, such as all photos with jane but not john and are on a beach,
rated 3 stars or better, taken with a nikon d300 camera and a 24-70mm
lens. or more realistically, all photos with jane in them, regardless
of when or where they were taken.
that's a helluva lot more control than you could ever hope to get using
finder.
> Because I do not like to lose control of where my edited images are.
> Which is mostly the reason I set iPhoto up to leave my images where I
> put them in the first place. I want to know where they are at all times.
as noted several times, you do not have to lose control of where your
images are. if you don't want iphoto to move files, just uncheck that
option in preferences. it's really very simple.
nospam
<i...@witzend.com> wrote:
> > > I used to use Photoshop, but
> > > that broke when I moved to Leopard; now I use GIMP.
> >
> > photoshop did not break in leopard, except perhaps if it was a very old
> > version.
>
> Version 7; and it most certainly broke. Old or not, it's what I had, and
> it did everything I wanted to do.
photoshop 7???? that came out in 2002, some 7 years ago. i'm surprised
it worked as long as it did.
the current version is cs4, aka version 11.
nospam
<i...@witzend.com> wrote:
> Here's what I do:
>
> IF I edit from within iPhoto, after I'm done, I reach into the
> "Modified" folder in iPhoto's library, get the edited version, and drag
> it to where the original was stored, replacing it. Then I select the
> image from within iPhoto and tell it "Revert to Original" (which is
> actually the edited version).
wow, that's a lot of work. you do that for every file you modify??
Doug Anderson
> In article <jollyroger-302D5...@news.individual.net>,
> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <drache-88E6B2....@nothing.attdns.com>,
> > erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <jollyroger-9E676...@news.individual.net>,
> > > Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > iPhoto is really is quite good at doing those basic things, IMO.
> > >
> > > Just don't try to do any real editing with it!
> >
> > It's not an image editor. It's a photo organizer. Use the right tool for
> > the job.
>
> In my case, iPhoto is also a poor organizer.
iPhoto's main strength (and main purpose, I believe) is in organizing
your photos.
If you prefer to organize them using your own naming and folder
system, then it is hard to see being happy with iPhoto. Personally,
I've been able to achieve much better organization with my 6000 or so
photos on iPhoto than I ever would have been able to with folders.
I can imagine though that if I were a professional photographer, or if
photography was part of my work, I might need a different way to
organize things. Certainly if I were a professional photographer, I'd
need a better way to edit things.
So for me at least, it is a good organizer. I'm very happy to trade
the organizational structure of iPhoto for the small drawback of
having to open iPhoto to easily find a picture. (If I was trying to
organize my photos with folders and naming conventions, I suspect it
would take me far longer to find a picture than it takes to open
iPhoto.)