View digital camera's photo(graph)s in iPhoto before importing?

[Ant]

Hello.

Is there a way to view the photo(graph)s bigger on a digital camera (not
an iPhone) in iPhoto before importing? This is in Mac OS X 10.8.3 on a
13.3" MacBook Pro from 2012.

It doesn't seem to have that option. It only appearsafter importing
them? :(

Thank you in advance. :)
--
Quote of the Week: "Even the ant has his (her) bite." --Turkish
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail. If crediting,
( ) then please kindly use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.

[Savageduck]

On 2013-03-26 12:42:55 -0700, ANT...@zimage.com (Ant) said:

> Hello.
>
> Is there a way to view the photo(graph)s bigger on a digital camera (not
> an iPhone) in iPhoto before importing? This is in Mac OS X 10.8.3 on a
> 13.3" MacBook Pro from 2012.
>
> It doesn't seem to have that option. It only appearsafter importing
> them? :(
>
> Thank you in advance. :)

Not in iPhoto, with that you are locked into the import dialog there.
However you have a great tool for viewing image files on your MBP with
"Preview".

Insert the memory card into the card reader, or attach your camera via
USB cord and set the camera to USB mode. (this effectively turns it
into a USB drive).
If you have iPhoto set to automatically download from camera or card
reader, or if iPhoto opens when you attach the camera or insert a card
into the reader, QUIT iPhoto.

Either the camera, or the card should appear on your desktop as a
device or drive.

Navigate to the image files (JPEG or RAW) via the finder.
Now without importing to iPhoto, you will be able to open all, or
individual image files in Preview. (Right click on the file thumbnail
and select Preview from the menu dialog)

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Ant]

On 3/26/2013 5:59 PM PT, Savageduck typed:

>> Is there a way to view the photo(graph)s bigger on a digital camera (not
>> an iPhone) in iPhoto before importing? This is in Mac OS X 10.8.3 on a
>> 13.3" MacBook Pro from 2012.
>>
>> It doesn't seem to have that option. It only appearsafter importing
>> them? :(
>

> Not in iPhoto, with that you are locked into the import dialog there.
> However you have a great tool for viewing image files on your MBP with
> "Preview".
>
> Insert the memory card into the card reader, or attach your camera via
> USB cord and set the camera to USB mode. (this effectively turns it into
> a USB drive).
> If you have iPhoto set to automatically download from camera or card
> reader, or if iPhoto opens when you attach the camera or insert a card
> into the reader, QUIT iPhoto.
>
> Either the camera, or the card should appear on your desktop as a device
> or drive.
>
> Navigate to the image files (JPEG or RAW) via the finder.
> Now without importing to iPhoto, you will be able to open all, or
> individual image files in Preview. (Right click on the file thumbnail
> and select Preview from the menu dialog)

Ah thanks. It would be nice to have iPhoto have a large size preview
instead of thumbnails to select what to import into it.
--
Captain Marvel: Shazam. Billy Batson: Now put her down. Black Adam: See?
Like an ant. --Superman/Shazam!: The Return of Black Adam
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)

/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |

\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.

[JF Mezei]

On 13-03-26 20:59, Savageduck wrote:

> Not in iPhoto, with that you are locked into the import dialog there.
> However you have a great tool for viewing image files on your MBP with
> "Preview".

You don't actually have to turn the camera into "USB mode", Preview can
import from "cameras" as well. And even if iPhoto is running if I am not
mistaken.

Note that it imports them into a designated directory (you can specify
where).

This is a good tool to import pictures you do not want included in
iPhoto but want stored separatly.

[Davoud]

Ant:

> Is there a way to view the photo(graph)s bigger on a digital camera (not
> an iPhone) in iPhoto before importing? This is in Mac OS X 10.8.3 on a
> 13.3" MacBook Pro from 2012.
>
> It doesn't seem to have that option. It only appearsafter importing
> them? :(

Well, yeah. That's the purpose of iPhoto and Lightroom and Aperture
(which is what you should be using, possibly). You bring all of your
photos in, examine them, and delete the ones you don't want to keep. If
there was an efficient way to do this in the Finder or with, say,
Preview.app, then we wouldn't need professional image management
software.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

[Davoud]

In article <2013032617590243658-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
Ant:

> > Is there a way to view the photo(graph)s bigger on a digital camera (not
> > an iPhone) in iPhoto before importing? This is in Mac OS X 10.8.3 on a
> > 13.3" MacBook Pro from 2012.
> >
> > It doesn't seem to have that option. It only appearsafter importing
> > them? :(

Savageduck:

> Not in iPhoto, with that you are locked into the import dialog there.
> However you have a great tool for viewing image files on your MBP with
> "Preview".

That's a waste of time. It's using Preview as an image-management tool,
a task for which Preview is ill suited, to determine whether images
should be added to an image-management tool, iPhoto. iPhoto offers
everything in one package--inspection, sorting, keywording, and
deleting.

[Savageduck]

On 2013-03-26 20:00:16 -0700, Davoud <st...@sky.net> said:

> In article <2013032617590243658-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> Ant:
>>> Is there a way to view the photo(graph)s bigger on a digital camera (not
>>> an iPhone) in iPhoto before importing? This is in Mac OS X 10.8.3 on a
>>> 13.3" MacBook Pro from 2012.
>>>
>>> It doesn't seem to have that option. It only appearsafter importing
>>> them? :(
>
> Savageduck:
>> Not in iPhoto, with that you are locked into the import dialog there.
>> However you have a great tool for viewing image files on your MBP with
>> "Preview".
>
> That's a waste of time. It's using Preview as an image-management tool,
> a task for which Preview is ill suited, to determine whether images
> should be added to an image-management tool, iPhoto. iPhoto offers
> everything in one package--inspection, sorting, keywording, and
> deleting.

I am a Lightroom 4/Photoshop user, I don't bother with iPhoto and I
understand all that you have stated above.

However, the OP was asking, was a way to view image files without
importing them into any management system, be it iPhoto or Lightroom,
and that is what "Preview" will do for him.

It is certainly not the way I use Preview, but it is a work-around,
which will let him see, or "Preview" one, or all the files on a card,
or even run a slide show without importing a single file.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[JF Mezei]

On 13-03-26 23:23, Savageduck wrote:

> It is certainly not the way I use Preview, but it is a work-around,
> which will let him see, or "Preview" one, or all the files on a card,
> or even run a slide show without importing a single file.

Be careful here. Preview doesn't actually let you view images in full
size without first copying them to disk. (there is a folder at bottom of
the import window).

The advantage over iPhoto is that once imported, you have a list of
photos you can view at full size, or delete individual thumbnails to get
the images deleted from that directory.

Deteting photos from iPhoto is a complex task if you want to make sure
the file is actually deleted and fully removed. (can't be done when
operating on a smart folder for instance)

[Savageduck]

On 2013-03-26 20:39:36 -0700, JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> said:

> On 13-03-26 23:23, Savageduck wrote:
>
>> It is certainly not the way I use Preview, but it is a work-around,
>> which will let him see, or "Preview" one, or all the files on a card,
>> or even run a slide show without importing a single file.
>
> Be careful here. Preview doesn't actually let you view images in full
> size without first copying them to disk. (there is a folder at bottom of
> the import window).

Strange, I just inserted a 16GB card into the card reader attached to
my Mac. I selected 4 NEF files from the card and opened them in Preview
without copying them to the HD.
They appear at 32% when opened, and I have no trouble going up to 100%
(and beyond) to view them, without copying them to the HD.
So 32%:
< https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_181w.jpg >
100%:
< https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_182w.jpg >
Naturally no RAW processing, or post processing has been done.
Try it.

> The advantage over iPhoto is that once imported, you have a list of
> photos you can view at full size, or delete individual thumbnails to get
> the images deleted from that directory.
>
> Deteting photos from iPhoto is a complex task if you want to make sure
> the file is actually deleted and fully removed. (can't be done when
> operating on a smart folder for instance)

iPhoto is a PIA which is fine for the family snapshooter, but it is
hardly a piece of serious photo editing/cataloging software.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[JF Mezei]

On 13-03-27 00:29, Savageduck wrote:

> Strange, I just inserted a 16GB card into the card reader attached to
> my Mac. I selected 4 NEF files from the card and opened them in Preview
> without copying them to the HD.

There is different functionality between disks and cameras.

When you insert a card, it is treated as a disk. Preview can deal with
files.

But when you insert a camera, there as camera-specific USB protocols
that appear to be more limited in functionlaity than with disk based USB
devices.

[Davoud]

Savageduck:
> >> Not in iPhoto, with that you are locked into the import dialog there.
> >> However you have a great tool for viewing image files on your MBP with
> >> "Preview".

Davoud:

> > That's a waste of time. It's using Preview as an image-management tool,
> > a task for which Preview is ill suited, to determine whether images
> > should be added to an image-management tool, iPhoto. iPhoto offers
> > everything in one package--inspection, sorting, keywording, and
> > deleting.

Savageduck:

> I am a Lightroom 4/Photoshop user, I don't bother with iPhoto and I
> understand all that you have stated above.
>
> However, the OP was asking, was a way to view image files without
> importing them into any management system, be it iPhoto or Lightroom,
> and that is what "Preview" will do for him.

He needed to be told, and I told him, that that is not the right way to
go about the task. It's an unnecessary extra step. There is a faster,
better way and it is to bring the photos into the image management app
(and he should probably be using Aperture or LR if he's serious about
image management) and then make his decisions.

My wife and I are long-time Aperture users, having liked Aperture well
enough to stick with it through the early, buggy versions. I have a
couple of LR 4 licenses as well, and because I like to know all of the
options I have just switched to LR exclusively for as long as it takes
me to become as skilled with LR as I am with Aperture--maybe a month. I
think that the cluttered LR user interface sucks big time compared to
Aperture, and if I don't stay with LR, that will be a major reason.
Identity plate? Pin stripes? Flourishes? Why in the world!? Another big
reason is that my wife is more resistant to change than I am; she
learns an app, it works for her, and she is loath to switch to
something new. I'll hand it to Adobe when it comes to doing magic with
bitmaps and vectors, but they need to hire Apple to design the UI. Gray
print on a gray background? Spare me! I have no idea what the pros do
with LR that I don't do with Aperture. I hear talk about speed, but for
me, Aperture's much superior UI more than makes up for any faster
algorithms that LR might have. I'm not a pro, and I do not market my
photos, but I'm a pretty good photographer who is well equipped with
good gear, and publishers stumble upon my photos on the web from time
to time and license them.

> It is certainly not the way I use Preview, but it is a work-around,
> which will let him see, or "Preview" one, or all the files on a card,
> or even run a slide show without importing a single file.

I haven't intentionally opened Preview in years. With Photoshop CS6
Extended, Acrobat Pro, and Quick Look in the Finder, I just can't find
a use for it.

[Erilar]

It doesn't have to be Preview, however. I open the camera with Finder and
can look at fotos in it and enlarge them with GC or my foto editor without
downloading them if I so choose.


--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist with iPad

[Erilar]

Davoud <st...@sky.net> wrote:
> In article <2013032617590243658-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> Ant:
>>> Is there a way to view the photo(graph)s bigger on a digital camera (not
>>> an iPhone) in iPhoto before importing? This is in Mac OS X 10.8.3 on a
>>> 13.3" MacBook Pro from 2012.
>>>
>>> It doesn't seem to have that option. It only appearsafter importing
>>> them? :(
>
> Savageduck:
>> Not in iPhoto, with that you are locked into the import dialog there.
>> However you have a great tool for viewing image files on your MBP with
>> "Preview".
>
> That's a waste of time. It's using Preview as an image-management tool,
> a task for which Preview is ill suited, to determine whether images
> should be added to an image-management tool, iPhoto. iPhoto offers
> everything in one package--inspection, sorting, keywording, and
> deleting.

It's a pretty measly foto ediyor, however.

[Erilar]

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

I just told iPhoto years ago to shut up and never try to import anything
without my express permission 8-)

[Savageduck]

Same here.
I haven't used iPhoto for years. I currently use LR4 + CS5. iPhoto is
gathering dust on my HD.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Savageduck]

Actually for a quick review you don't even have to use Preview or GC.
All you have to do is open the camera or memory card in Finder and
adjust the thumbnail size slider to view them at a size large enough to
make a basic evaluation.
< https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_183.jpg >

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[nospam]

In article <2013032708163984492-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,

depends on the camera. not all show up as a mass storage device in
finder.

[Jolly Roger]

In article <GcCdnagdkN-iZ8zM...@earthlink.com>,

ANT...@zimage.com (Ant) wrote:

> Hello.
>
> Is there a way to view the photo(graph)s bigger on a digital camera (not
> an iPhone) in iPhoto before importing? This is in Mac OS X 10.8.3 on a
> 13.3" MacBook Pro from 2012.
>
> It doesn't seem to have that option. It only appearsafter importing
> them? :(
>
> Thank you in advance. :)

So you want iPhoto to transfer the high-res image from your camera to
your computer so you can display it in high-res - before you ask iPhoto
to transfer the photos to your computer...

--
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

[Savageduck]

On 2013-03-27 08:41:29 -0700, Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> said:

> In article <GcCdnagdkN-iZ8zM...@earthlink.com>,
> ANT...@zimage.com (Ant) wrote:
>
>> Hello.
>>
>> Is there a way to view the photo(graph)s bigger on a digital camera (not
>> an iPhone) in iPhoto before importing? This is in Mac OS X 10.8.3 on a
>> 13.3" MacBook Pro from 2012.
>>
>> It doesn't seem to have that option. It only appearsafter importing
>> them? :(
>>
>> Thank you in advance. :)
>
> So you want iPhoto to transfer the high-res image from your camera to
> your computer so you can display it in high-res - before you ask iPhoto
> to transfer the photos to your computer...

No. He just wants to be able to view images on his display at a
reasonable size before importing, without dealing with iPhoto.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Jolly Roger]

In article <201303270847447987-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

You'll have to excuse me, then, for taking him at his word. He
specifically said "view the photo(graph)s bigger on a digital camera
(not an iPhone) in iPhoto before importing"...

[Savageduck]

On 2013-03-27 09:00:29 -0700, Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> said:

> In article <201303270847447987-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2013-03-27 08:41:29 -0700, Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> said:
>>
>>> In article <GcCdnagdkN-iZ8zM...@earthlink.com>,
>>> ANT...@zimage.com (Ant) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello.
>>>>
>>>> Is there a way to view the photo(graph)s bigger on a digital camera (not
>>>> an iPhone) in iPhoto before importing? This is in Mac OS X 10.8.3 on a
>>>> 13.3" MacBook Pro from 2012.
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't seem to have that option. It only appearsafter importing
>>>> them? :(
>>>>
>>>> Thank you in advance. :)
>>>
>>> So you want iPhoto to transfer the high-res image from your camera to
>>> your computer so you can display it in high-res - before you ask iPhoto
>>> to transfer the photos to your computer...
>>
>> No. He just wants to be able to view images on his display at a
>> reasonable size before importing, without dealing with iPhoto.
>
> You'll have to excuse me, then, for taking him at his word. He
> specifically said "view the photo(graph)s bigger on a digital camera
> (not an iPhone) in iPhoto before importing"...

Yup! That is what he wrote, he is looking for a way to review the
images at a size larger than he sees them on his camera's LCD without
importing them into iPhoto. The OP was obviously not aware of the many
other ways of viewing those image files on his display without
importing them, believing iPhoto to be his only option.

A few of us have told him that iPhoto is not an option for this
reviewing without importing task, but using Preview or the Finder are
possible options. After doing that review, he can import into iPhoto to
his heart's content.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[nospam]

In article <jollyroger-2AEA4...@news.individual.net>,

Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:

> > >> Is there a way to view the photo(graph)s bigger on a digital camera (not
> > >> an iPhone) in iPhoto before importing? This is in Mac OS X 10.8.3 on a
> > >> 13.3" MacBook Pro from 2012.
> > >>
> > >> It doesn't seem to have that option. It only appearsafter importing
> > >> them? :(
> > >>
> > >> Thank you in advance. :)
> > >
> > > So you want iPhoto to transfer the high-res image from your camera to
> > > your computer so you can display it in high-res - before you ask iPhoto
> > > to transfer the photos to your computer...
> >
> > No. He just wants to be able to view images on his display at a
> > reasonable size before importing, without dealing with iPhoto.
>
> You'll have to excuse me, then, for taking him at his word. He
> specifically said "view the photo(graph)s bigger on a digital camera
> (not an iPhone) in iPhoto before importing"...

then you misunderstood what he said. bigger does not mean full
resolution.

[nospam]

In article <michelle-FBA810...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:

> What he wants to do, as he phrased it, is not possible. However, there are
> other ways to view those photos at full size without transferring them to
> his computer. The easiest, to me, is to use Quick Look in the Finder to
> view the photos on the camera. (This presumes that connecting the camera
> via USB will result in the Finder treating the camera as a removable hard
> disk, which is the case with my Nikon, and I presume most, if not all,
> other digital cameras.)

it is definitely not the case. many cameras, including recent nikon
cameras, no longer support mass storage mode.

not that it matters since it's easier to pop the card into a card
reader, which on recent macs, is built in. that *will* show up on the
desktop. there's no need for two transfer protocols in the camera.

[Davoud]

Davoud:

> > That's a waste of time. It's using Preview as an image-management tool,
> > a task for which Preview is ill suited, to determine whether images
> > should be added to an image-management tool, iPhoto. iPhoto offers
> > everything in one package--inspection, sorting, keywording, and
> > deleting.

Erilar:

> It's a pretty measly foto ediyor, however.

I haven't used iPhoto for years, so I only know that it used to be
sub-par for editing. I know that it's an entry-level image-management
application. My feeling is that if one's photos are important to one,
then one needs to use the best tools to manipulate the photos. If
they're not important, why bother to press the shutter button, or even
carry a camera?

Aperture and Adobe Photoshop Lightroom have powerful editing and
management tools.

The ideal is to make one's photographs in such a way that they don't
need a lot of editing, and digital photography has made that easier
than ever before.

Some people still think that if you photograph people outside in bright
sunlight the people should face the sun and the camera should always
face away from the sun. The opposite is true, as illustrated here
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/8595872580/in/photostream/lightbo
x/>. I used a diffused flash on a very bright day. Notice how the model
is not squinting as she would be if she were facing the sun. There are
no harsh shadows (though her right hand could have been positioned a
bit better) and the sun coming from behind highlights the model's hair.
The flash puts a catchlight in her eyes; without it she would look
dead. This photo received minimal processing in Lightroom and skin
blemishes were removed in Photoshop CS6. No other editing was done, as
it's a reject.

People using consumer-grade cameras often can't achieve the ideal, but
those who want to make better-than-average photos with an inexpensive
camera should start by buying a point-and-shoot that offers manual
controls in addition to full automatic. And they ought to read a how-to
book on photography with P&S cameras. Many skilled photographers have
made beautiful, marketable photos with P&S cameras when their pro gear
wasn't around or the event was so ephemeral there was no time to reach
for the pro camera. Practice makes perfect, and with film so cheap
these days, there is no excuse for not practicing.

And dump iPhoto for Aperture or Lightroom. Don't ask me to join the
argument over which is the better application. I can tell you that
Apple's stupid obsession with secrecy in every area of their business
is rapidly driving professionals away from Apple applications such as
Aperture and Final Cut Pro X. Adobe has road maps to tell the public
their future plans and features they are working on. Aperture hasn't
had a new version in more than three years. That makes buyers nervous
about whether Apple will suddenly kill Aperture as they did Final Cut
Pro--which, in one stroke, ended Apple's pre-eminence in TV and film
production.

[nospam]

In article <michelle-18852A...@news.eternal-september.org>,

Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:

> > not that it matters since it's easier to pop the card into a card
> > reader, which on recent macs, is built in.
>

> Only for for SD (and variations thereof) cards;

which is the vast majority of cameras these days.

> any card with a different
> form factor will require an external card reader.

true, but those who use cf or xqd likely have a card reader already.

> And the 2012 iMac has
> what is probably the least accessible location for a card reader on any
> computer, so even with SD cards, it's probably better to have an external
> card reader.

true.

[JF Mezei]

On 13-03-27 12:25, Savageduck wrote:

> A few of us have told him that iPhoto is not an option for this
> reviewing without importing task, but using Preview or the Finder are
> possible options. After doing that review, he can import into iPhoto to
> his heart's content.
>

1- If the camera connects as a "camera" instead of mass storage, tricks
from Finder wont work because the photos will not appear on the finder.
Same with Preview and iPhoto.

For when the camera acts as mass storage (of you insert the storage card
directly into the Mac), there are many tricks:

You can select all images and press the space bar, this gives you a mini
slide show. (ou can grow the previous to full screen).

You can also use cover flow finder window type.

However, all those are not instantaneous, they still require time for
the "Quick Look Helper" process to read through the large files to build
the large thumbnails that fit the target display. The same engine is
used for cover flow.

Cover flow is useful because you can click on one filename to select it,
and then use up/down arrows to go through the image. I one image is bad,
you can delete it with command-delete as you would any file since it is
selected.(moving up/down arrow moves the selection).


I use this for scanned images after a batch of slides has been scanned.
But for cameras, I have used iPhoto.

I have not decided yet what the best way is.

[Ant]

> >>> Is there a way to view the photo(graph)s bigger on a digital camera (not
> >>> an iPhone) in iPhoto before importing? This is in Mac OS X 10.8.3 on a
> >>> 13.3" MacBook Pro from 2012.
> >>>
> >>> It doesn't seem to have that option. It only appearsafter importing
> >>> them? :(
> >
> > Savageduck:
> >> Not in iPhoto, with that you are locked into the import dialog there.
> >> However you have a great tool for viewing image files on your MBP with
> >> "Preview".
> >
> > That's a waste of time. It's using Preview as an image-management tool,
> > a task for which Preview is ill suited, to determine whether images
> > should be added to an image-management tool, iPhoto. iPhoto offers
> > everything in one package--inspection, sorting, keywording, and
> > deleting.

> It's a pretty measly foto ediyor, however.

It is not for editing though hence why iPhoto usage.
--
Quote of the Week: "Even the ant has his (her) bite." --Turkish
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail. If crediting,
( ) then please kindly use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.

[Davoud]

Savageduck:

> Yup! That is what he wrote, he is looking for a way to review the
> images at a size larger than he sees them on his camera's LCD without
> importing them into iPhoto. The OP was obviously not aware of the many
> other ways of viewing those image files on his display without
> importing them, believing iPhoto to be his only option.

> A few of us have told him that iPhoto is not an option for this
> reviewing without importing task, but using Preview or the Finder are
> possible options. After doing that review, he can import into iPhoto to
> his heart's content.

Once more, he can do that if he wants to waste his time.

What does he do with, say, 600 photos on his card? Go through them one
at a time outside of iPhoto, write down the arcane file names of the
ones he doesn't want, then select all, then go through the list of 600
photos manually deleting the ones he doesn't want to import?

The review and decision process are what iPhoto is designed for. iPhoto
allows for a review process before importing. If one wants to import
the great majority of the 600 pics, select all and then Command-Click
the rejects. If one wants to import only a few, click the first one and
then Command-Click the others that are to be imported. There is no
faster way to do what he wants to do. And if he's using a tethered
camera he needs to break that bad habit and use a card reader.

He also needs to dump iPhoto and get Aperture or Lightroom. I found
iPhoto on one of my Macs just now. Not only is it limited and difficult
it is to use than the pro-level image-management apps.

[Savageduck]

He didn't ask for the sensible solution or workflow, he just asked how
to view the image files without importing them.

Personally, I use LR4 and I import ALL the shots from a particular
shoot or event. Then I do a basic review, and rate using "Reject", a
star rating (1-5), or color coding, and finally flagging. That way I
can filter what I am looking at, but I still have the entire shoot,
with good & bad shots intact. However, I am not trying to teach him my
work flow, or dictate the best way to do things, just answer his
question, which was simple enough.

So, I actually agree with you in terms of what might be the better way
to do things, but just remember, not everybody needs Aperture, LR, or
Photoshop + Bridge.

In this case here is an 1149 shot day rated, rejected, and flagged down
to 82 keepers on LR4. That does not mean I would not return to some of
those I initially rejected to see if there is something I can get out
of them.
< https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_184.jpg >


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Davoud]

Savageduck:

> He didn't ask for the sensible solution or workflow, he just asked how
> to view the image files without importing them.
>
> Personally, I use LR4 and I import ALL the shots from a particular
> shoot or event. Then I do a basic review, and rate using "Reject", a
> star rating (1-5), or color coding, and finally flagging. That way I
> can filter what I am looking at, but I still have the entire shoot,
> with good & bad shots intact. However, I am not trying to teach him my
> work flow, or dictate the best way to do things, just answer his
> question, which was simple enough.

Not every taks has just one right way. Essentially, there is only one
right way (with minor variations) and there are many wrong ways to
manage photo libraries. You are doing it the right way.

> So, I actually agree with you in terms of what might be the better way
> to do things, but just remember, not everybody needs Aperture, LR, or
> Photoshop + Bridge.

At $80 for multiple Macs, even a newbie photographer can't go wrong
with Aperture. Plenty powerful, easy to use, and that could encourage
someone to explore the art of photography more deeply.

> In this case here is an 1149 shot day rated, rejected, and flagged down
> to 82 keepers on LR4. That does not mean I would not return to some of
> those I initially rejected to see if there is something I can get out
> of them.
> < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_184.jpg >

Blessed are the keywords and stars and flags. But with keywords and
other tags, why do you make extensive use of catalogs? Will you
remember on 2017-06-03 what is in the catalog named 2012-06-03?

[Savageduck]

On 2013-03-27 15:45:58 -0700, Davoud <st...@sky.net> said:

> Savageduck:
>> He didn't ask for the sensible solution or workflow, he just asked how
>> to view the image files without importing them.
>>
>> Personally, I use LR4 and I import ALL the shots from a particular
>> shoot or event. Then I do a basic review, and rate using "Reject", a
>> star rating (1-5), or color coding, and finally flagging. That way I
>> can filter what I am looking at, but I still have the entire shoot,
>> with good & bad shots intact. However, I am not trying to teach him my
>> work flow, or dictate the best way to do things, just answer his
>> question, which was simple enough.
>
> Not every taks has just one right way. Essentially, there is only one
> right way (with minor variations) and there are many wrong ways to
> manage photo libraries. You are doing it the right way.

I am doing it one of the right ways. ;-)

>> So, I actually agree with you in terms of what might be the better way
>> to do things, but just remember, not everybody needs Aperture, LR, or
>> Photoshop + Bridge.
>
> At $80 for multiple Macs, even a newbie photographer can't go wrong
> with Aperture. Plenty powerful, easy to use, and that could encourage
> someone to explore the art of photography more deeply.

Possibly, but that is a decision the OP has to make for himself.
Perhaps after reading more of this discussion, he will move to software
and a workflow which will make things easier for him.

>> In this case here is an 1149 shot day rated, rejected, and flagged down
>> to 82 keepers on LR4. That does not mean I would not return to some of
>> those I initially rejected to see if there is something I can get out
>> of them.
>> < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_184.jpg >
>
> Blessed are the keywords and stars and flags. But with keywords and
> other tags, why do you make extensive use of catalogs? Will you
> remember on 2017-06-03 what is in the catalog named 2012-06-03?

You will note that not all the catalog folders are limited to date.
The example above is labeled "12-09-29 Warbirds Over Paso". Otherwise I
can pretty much navigate through my catalog, (just scrolling through
the folders, as the cursor is over a folder the first image in that
folder appears in the small "Navigator" window) which I refine from
time to time, relabeling and creating specific "Collections" and "Smart
Collections". Among my "Smart Collections" you will find folders such
as "colored red", "Three Stars", "Four Stars", "Five Stars", "Past
Month", "Recently Modified", etc.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Erilar]

I didn't cut because this is good advice for those with less experience or
higher requirements than I.
A friend who's less picky than I uses the latest iPhoto for editing. I am
actually using ColorIt!, which I'v e been using through several
incarnations. I can't do the fancy PhotoShoppy things some delight in that
don't interest me, but I can work at single-pixel depth if I so wish.

All I want is good clean album-size fotos, not huge frameable ones.

i've been using cameras for close to seven decades now, and know a good bit
about them. At my age, size and weight need to be smaller than they used
to be, so I live with the compromise. My daughter recently bought a lovely
digital SLR that made me drool, but it wouldn't fit my jacket pocket 8-).

However, I have NO interest in using a phone for photograpy.

[Erilar]

I have a single use for it: making "albums" for my iPad, two of which are
pure foto albums. Lots of music.

[Savageduck]

For individuals who are not inclined to use Photoshop and want more out
of an editor than iPhoto provides, I suggest taking a look at
"Pixelmator".
< http://www.pixelmator.com/ >

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Erilar]

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

I'm quite happy with ColorIt! Which seems to be generally unknown.

[Jolly Roger]

In article <kj5ckp$ogf$1...@dont-email.me>,

Erilar <dra...@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:

> I'm quite happy with ColorIt! Which seems to be generally unknown.

Oh yeah! I loved that program. : )

[Savageduck]

On 2013-03-29 17:46:17 -0700, Erilar <dra...@chibardun.netinvalid> said:

> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>> On 2013-03-29 07:59:52 -0700, Erilar <dra...@chibardun.netinvalid> said:

<<< Le Snip >>>

>>> A friend who's less picky than I uses the latest iPhoto for editing. I am
>>> actually using ColorIt!, which I'v e been using through several
>>> incarnations. I can't do the fancy PhotoShoppy things some delight in that
>>> don't interest me, but I can work at single-pixel depth if I so wish.
>>>> All I want is good clean album-size fotos, not huge frameable ones.
>>>> i've been using cameras for close to seven decades now, and know a good bit
>>> about them. At my age, size and weight need to be smaller than they used
>>> to be, so I live with the compromise. My daughter recently bought a lovely
>>> digital SLR that made me drool, but it wouldn't fit my jacket pocket 8-).
>>>> However, I have NO interest in using a phone for photograpy.
>>
>> For individuals who are not inclined to use Photoshop and want more out
>> of an editor than iPhoto provides, I suggest taking a look at "Pixelmator".
>> < http://www.pixelmator.com/ >
>
> I'm quite happy with ColorIt! Which seems to be generally unknown.

Strange! the only "Colorit" I can find via Google and the App Store, is
an iPad app aimed at kids, 1-3 years old, and which doesn't exactly
have much in the way of photo editing capability.
< https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/tappie-colorit/id451018024?mt=8 >

Please provide a link, I am always curious when it comes to graphics
editing software.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[nospam]

In article <201303291815391393-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck

<http://www.microfrontier.com/products.html>

it's an old app and no longer works on recent macs. note the following:

Although not a Universal Binary, Color It 4.5 is fully compatible
with Intel-based Macs and runs very quickly utilizing Apple�s Rosetta
technology (but will NOT run in Mac OS X 10.7 �Lion�).

they say they're working on a new version, but given that it's been
about 7 years since intel macs came out, i don't think they're in any
particular rush.

[Savageduck]

Thanks for the info!
That appears to be a very "Windozy" app. I don't think I need to
explore much further.
I will stick to LR4 + CS5.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[PhillipJones]

I like GraphicsConverter

--
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. "If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
http://www.phillipmjones.net mailto:pjon...@comcast.net

[Savageduck]

I loved GraphicConverter over 10 years ago when it was one of the best
graphics editors available for the Mac, certainly better than the
initial offerings from Adobe at that time. When bundled with all Macs
for many of us, it was the best show in town.

The latest version, GC8, which has many decent features, and is able to
attack many obscure file formats, falls short when compared to some of
the graphics editors available today. It is certainly useful to have
installed to satisfy one's sense of Mac nostalgia, but it is not as
vital as it once was.
There are better solutions today, including, dare I say it GIMP.
For the basic snap-shooting, Mac using, hobbyist who does not care to
wallow in the CS6 learning curve my recommendation for two thoroughly
contemporary simple graphics editors, look no further than Photoshop
Elements & Pixelmator.

I will stick to LR4 & CS5.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Erilar]

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> On 2013-03-29 18:46:07 -0700, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> said:
>
>> In article <201303291815391393-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck
>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>>>> I'm quite happy with ColorIt! Which seems to be generally unknown.
>>>>> Strange! the only "Colorit" I can find via Google and the App Store, is
>>> an iPad app aimed at kids, 1-3 years old, and which doesn't exactly
>>> have much in the way of photo editing capability.
>>> < https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/tappie-colorit/id451018024?mt=8 >
>>>>> Please provide a link, I am always curious when it comes to graphics
>>> editing software.
>>> <http://www.microfrontier.com/products.html>
>>> it's an old app and no longer works on recent macs. note the following:
>>> Although not a Universal Binary, Color It 4.5 is fully compatible
>> with Intel-based Macs and runs very quickly utilizing Apple¹s Rosetta
>> technology (but will NOT run in Mac OS X 10.7 ³Lion²).
>>> they say they're working on a new version, but given that it's been
>> about 7 years since intel macs came out, i don't think they're in any
>> particular rush.
>
> Thanks for the info!
> That appears to be a very "Windozy" app. I don't think I need to explore much further.
> I will stick to LR4 + CS5.

Windoze? That's an insult of major proportions!

[Erilar]

I see another reason to avoid that downgrade.

[Erilar]

It's not an iPad app at all. It's one of the grand and glorious lonely 3
pieces of software I find useful that has been upgraded over the years
without ever dropping anything useful when it adds something. The other
two are GC and PopChar.

[PhillipJones]

I have web Premium 5.5 which includes Photoshop and FireWorks ( I like
fireWorks better) and just purchased Lightroom.

Lightroom does one thing nothing else will, create webpage photo albums.

as for controls for such things a focus adjustments. They are almost
impossible to find. Apreture on the other hamd the just ment controls
are on the right side and the item to be worked on on left. I have
several different applications for adjusting Photos. Another I have that
has only one feature I like is adding Picture Frames.

[JF Mezei]

On 13-03-31 15:08, PhillipJones wrote:

> Lightroom does one thing nothing else will, create webpage photo albums.

Ever heard about triming text ? No post shoudl have more quoted text
lines than the amount being added.

Secondly, iPhoto 09 has the ability to create a web photo album.

File -> Export

here is an example I did in about 15 seconds: (selected photos from a
bike trip to toronto in an album and "file export". Sorry my web site is
slow for uploads

http://www.vaxination.ca/temp/apple/

I do not use iPhoto to edit images. It has the ability to call photoshop
when I need to edit images (and then I generally save the edited image
elsewhere unless I truly want to permanently change that image)

[dorayme]

In article <51588f51$0$26973$c3e8da3$3388...@news.astraweb.com>,
JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> Ever heard about triming text ? No post should have more quoted text

> lines than the amount being added.

You are right to complain about untrimmed text. But you then over-egg
the pudding with a falsity. This reply has more chars and lines on my
MT viewport and yet its perfect, as are most of my posts.

--
dorayme

[Savageduck]

On 2013-03-31 12:08:39 -0700, PhillipJones <pjon...@comcast.net> said:

> Savageduck wrote:
>> On 2013-03-30 17:50:00 -0700, PhillipJones <pjon...@comcast.net> said:

<<< Le Snip >>>

>>> I like GraphicsConverter
>>
>> I loved GraphicConverter over 10 years ago when it was one of the best
>> graphics editors available for the Mac, certainly better than the
>> initial offerings from Adobe at that time. When bundled with all Macs
>> for many of us, it was the best show in town.
>>
>> The latest version, GC8, which has many decent features, and is able to
>> attack many obscure file formats, falls short when compared to some of
>> the graphics editors available today. It is certainly useful to have
>> installed to satisfy one's sense of Mac nostalgia, but it is not as
>> vital as it once was.
>> There are better solutions today, including, dare I say it GIMP.
>> For the basic snap-shooting, Mac using, hobbyist who does not care to
>> wallow in the CS6 learning curve my recommendation for two thoroughly
>> contemporary simple graphics editors, look no further than Photoshop
>> Elements & Pixelmator.
>>
>> I will stick to LR4 & CS5.
>>
> I have web Premium 5.5 which includes Photoshop and FireWorks ( I like
> fireWorks better) and just purchased Lightroom.

What are you using Fireworks for?
Fireworks is essentially a web graphic design tool, not a photo editor.

> Lightroom does one thing nothing else will, create webpage photo albums.

If you have CS5 in web Premium you also have Bridge. Lightroom is
Bridge on steroids, and as such you can produce the same html & Flash
web galleries and slide shows with Bridge as you were able to with LR.

> as for controls for such things a focus adjustments. They are almost
> impossible to find.

The reason for that is, focus adjustments do not exist on Photoshop or
Lightroom, the assumption has always been that you use a decent
camera-lens combination with the appropriate exposure setting with
either AF or manual focus to deal with those nasty focus issues.

> Apreture on the other hamd the just ment controls are on the right side
> and the item to be worked on on left.

As for finding the various adjustment tools in LR, they are on the
right. Always have been.
< https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_191.jpg >

> I have several different applications for adjusting Photos. Another I
> have that has only one feature I like is adding Picture Frames.

Have fun.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Savageduck]

Well, look at it, and tell me that wasn't created by a developer with
his head mired in Windows of some 7-10 years ago.
If you feel that opinion of mine was an insult of major proportions, so be it.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Erilar]

PhillipJones <pjon...@comcast.net> wrote:

> Erilar wrote:
>
>> I'm quite happy with ColorIt! Which seems to be generally unknown.
>>
> I like GraphicsConverter

oh, I use that, too, but not for the same things.

[Savageduck]

I understand that, but do a search for "Colorit" and see where it leads you.

I asked you to please provide a link.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[nospam]

In article <2013033114342660903-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,

the first hit is the company that made the colorit! app, digimage arts.

[Paul Sture]

In article <51588f51$0$26973$c3e8da3$3388...@news.astraweb.com>,
JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> iPhoto 09 has the ability to create a web photo album.
>
> File -> Export
>
> here is an example I did in about 15 seconds: (selected photos from a
> bike trip to toronto in an album and "file export". Sorry my web site is
> slow for uploads
>
> http://www.vaxination.ca/temp/apple/

I saw each page drawing down the screen but I found the response times
perfectly acceptable.

--
Paul Sture

[dorayme]

In article <201303311428512196-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> Fireworks is essentially a web graphic design tool, not a photo editor.

You are right that it is intended in many ways to assist website
business. But, apart from that it has many photo image editing
facilities, and is very handy for conversion and compression (not
necessarily for websites).

--
dorayme

[PhillipJones]

dorayme wrote:

> You are right to complain about untrimmed text. But you then over-egg
> the pudding with a falsity. This reply has more chars and lines on my
> MT viewport and yet its perfect, as are most of my posts.
>

I visit a lot of support sites that hate trimming because they feel you
loose train of thought and frame of reference. So its difficult to
remember the ones that want trimming and the one that don't. Plus I
don't recall this ever being brought up in this newsgroup.

[Savageduck]

I saw the link you posted. However, after I made a Google search I
checked the Apple App store, and the iTunes App store and was led to
the iPad kiddies App.
The first thing I read on the Digimage Art (Microfrontier actually)
search result was:
"Color It! will NOT run under Mac OS X 10.7 (Lion) or later systems."
There I see the app is named "Color It" not "Colorit". There is a
subtle difference. So for $59.95 I believe most would be better served
with a copy of PSE11.

...and when I looked at the site I was decidedly unimpressed. As I said
I will stick to the Adobe products I am currently using, LR4 + CS5.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[JF Mezei]

On 13-03-31 21:35, PhillipJones wrote:

> I visit a lot of support sites that hate trimming because they feel you
> loose train of thought and frame of reference. So its difficult to
> remember the ones that want trimming and the one that don't. Plus I
> don't recall this ever being brought up in this newsgroup.

Trimming of quotes and bottom posting has been STANDARD for usenet since
its inception in the 1980s.

It is only because of Microsoft which refused to adopt established
standards and set its defaults that trained a new generation to diverge
from established standards that we see folks not trimming abd top posting.

(Apple MAIL in the iPhone is one such culprit).

[PhillipJones]

Savageduck wrote:

> I understand that, but do a search for "Colorit" and see where it leads
> you.
>
> I asked you to please provide a link.
>

The answer was directed to th comment about trackpads, scroll bars
action in Mac OSX

As for the link to ColorIt! Google it. the last version Color it works
on Snow Leopard (OSX.6.8) not Lion (OSX.7.x) or Mountain Lion (OSX.8.x)
it appears all effort has stopped on it. I remember using it a Long time
ago But never had it on this computer.

[nospam]

In article <2013033118380954666-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> >>>>>> I'm quite happy with ColorIt! Which seems to be generally unknown.
> >>>>
> >>>> Strange! the only "Colorit" I can find via Google and the App Store, is
> >>>> an iPad app aimed at kids, 1-3 years old, and which doesn't exactly have
> >>>> much in the way of photo editing capability.
> >>>> < https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/tappie-colorit/id451018024?mt=8 >
> >>>>
> >>>> Please provide a link, I am always curious when it comes to graphics
> >>>> editing software.
> >>>>
> >>> It's not an iPad app at all. It's one of the grand and glorious lonely 3
> >>> pieces of software I find useful that has been upgraded over the years
> >>> without ever dropping anything useful when it adds something. The other
> >>> two are GC and PopChar.
> >>
> >> I understand that, but do a search for "Colorit" and see where it leads
> >> you.
> >
> > the first hit is the company that made the colorit! app, digimage arts.
>
> I saw the link you posted. However, after I made a Google search I
> checked the Apple App store, and the iTunes App store and was led to
> the iPad kiddies App.
> The first thing I read on the Digimage Art (Microfrontier actually)
> search result was:
> "Color It! will NOT run under Mac OS X 10.7 (Lion) or later systems."
> There I see the app is named "Color It" not "Colorit". There is a
> subtle difference. So for $59.95 I believe most would be better served
> with a copy of PSE11.

it's actually named color it!, with a !, but nevertheless, searching
for colorit or color it (without a !) leads to microfrontier as the
first hit, and for the latter, the first three hits are relevant.

it doesn't run on lion and later but that's a separate issue. the
person who mentioned it doesn't use lion.

> ...and when I looked at the site I was decidedly unimpressed. As I said
> I will stick to the Adobe products I am currently using, LR4 + CS5.

it was mildly interesting a decade ago, but certainly not now.

[PhillipJones]

Paul Sture wrote:
> In article<51588f51$0$26973$c3e8da3$3388...@news.astraweb.com>,
> JF Mezei<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>
>> iPhoto 09 has the ability to create a web photo album.
>>
>> File -> Export
>>
>> here is an example I did in about 15 seconds: (selected photos from a
>> bike trip to toronto in an album and "file export". Sorry my web site is
>> slow for uploads
>>
>> http://www.vaxination.ca/temp/apple/

Nice. But Aperture has the ability to add specific backgrounds ability
to add titles, and you can go to each photo before creating the Photo
album add a Title then a description for each photo.

[Phillip Jones]

for a group such as this, Bottom post is preferred and the Norm. In a
group dedicated strictly to support Top post should always the Norm.
Lets you find out the latest suggestion with out having to scroll
through previous suggestion or reading previous post to figure what's
been tried.

Bottom Post is the norm because a Bunch of people got together in the
days Dial up paying for the Phone calls to the groups, and programs such
as WhiteKnight/RedRyder and said this is how it shall be.

But Internet has evolved well beyond those days. Thank goodness some
things have become more realistic.

[nospam]

In article <kjar4e$bef$1...@dont-email.me>, Phillip Jones

<pjon...@comcast.net> wrote:

> Bottom Post is the norm because a Bunch of people got together in the
> days Dial up paying for the Phone calls to the groups, and programs such
> as WhiteKnight/RedRyder and said this is how it shall be.

bottom posting predates white knight/redryder.

<http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html>
A: No.
Q: Should I include quotations after my reply?

<http://www.idallen.com/topposting.html>
A: Because we read from top to bottom, left to right.
Q: Why should I start my reply below the quoted text?

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

A: The lost context.
Q: What makes top-posted replies harder to read than bottom-posted?

A: Yes.
Q: Should I trim down the quoted part of an email to which I'm
replying?

> But Internet has evolved well beyond those days. Thank goodness some
> things have become more realistic.

top posting is not one of them.

[Savageduck]

Bottom posting maintains chronology of the thread. Top posting is an
email convention inherited from the good old snail mail days.
< http://mailformat.dan.info/quoting/bottom-posting.html >
< http://mailformat.dan.info/quoting/top-posting.html >
< http://www.idallen.com/topposting.html >

So rather than make readers of your posts work to follow context by
reading an out of sequence post, just bottom post, or interleaf post.

Trimming is appropriate, provided context is not destroyed.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Paul Sture]

In article <michelle-E438FC...@news.eternal-september.org>,

Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <kjar4e$bef$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Phillip Jones <pjon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>

> > Bottom Post is the norm because a Bunch of people got together in the
> > days Dial up paying for the Phone calls to the groups, and programs such
> > as WhiteKnight/RedRyder and said this is how it shall be.
>

> Well, actually every dialup software, and all internet email browsers
> before Microsoft's mail browser. As JF said, it wasn't until Microsoft
> decided to veer from the established de-facto standard that no one even
> heard of top posting.

Outlook compounded the issue with its broken quoting behaviour too.

The only way to reply using properly formatted interleaved responses was
to cut the lot into Notepad, edit it there and then paste into the reply.

At its worst I had to create a new message instead of replying to the
original, because somehow it marked a reply to Outlook as "also brain
dead".

--
Paul Sture

[JF Mezei]

On 13-03-31 22:26, Phillip Jones wrote:

> Top post should always the Norm.
> Lets you find out the latest suggestion with out having to scroll
> through previous suggestion or reading previous post to figure what's
> been tried.

Not when people learn to trim quotes properly. Quotes are only meant to
establish context. The full original post is available to anyone wanting
it, no need to fully quote it back.

[JF Mezei]

Not when people learn to trim quotes properly. Quotes are only meant to
establish context. The full original post is available to anyone wanting
it, no need to fully quote it back.

So, any guess on what it is I am replying to in your "Top Post" and
"Full quote" approach ?

On 13-03-31 22:26, Phillip Jones wrote:

[Walter Bushell]

In article <jollyroger-E8022...@news.individual.net>,
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:

> In article <kj5ckp$ogf$1...@dont-email.me>,

> Erilar <dra...@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
>
> > I'm quite happy with ColorIt! Which seems to be generally unknown.
>

> Oh yeah! I loved that program. : )

Worked in *no* memory. Handled Kodak film scans .PSD ? in megabyte
memory and even profession film scans in 12 megabytes IIRC.

I don't know how they did it.

--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx

[Paul Sture]

In article <michelle-C1B04C...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <nospam-C12A3F....@news.chingola.ch>,

> Paul Sture <nos...@sture.ch> wrote:
>
> > > Well, actually every dialup software, and all internet email browsers
> > > before Microsoft's mail browser. As JF said, it wasn't until
> > > Microsoft decided to veer from the established de-facto standard that
> > > no one even heard of top posting.
> >
> > Outlook compounded the issue with its broken quoting behaviour too.
>

> Um, isn't Outlook a Microsoft product?

Yep, though I never quite got my head around the different flavours of
it. I believe the corporate version differed from the one Joe Public
got.

--
Paul Sture

[Erilar]

Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <slrnklhqe3....@mbp55.local>,

> Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
>>> (Apple MAIL in the iPhone is one such culprit).
>>

>> Yes, and it's fucking annoying enough I almost never reply to mail on my
>> iOS devices.
>
> Try selecting the text you wish to reply to before replying; only that text
> will be quoted in your reply.

I do that when I'm on my laptop, but I can,t seem to do that here in
Newstap

--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist with iPad

[Erilar]

Phillip Jones <pjon...@comcast.net> wrote:
> JF Mezei wrote:
>> On 13-03-31 21:35, PhillipJones wrote:
>>
>>> I visit a lot of support sites that hate trimming because they feel you
>>> loose train of thought and frame of reference. So its difficult to
>>> remember the ones that want trimming and the one that don't. Plus I
>>> don't recall this ever being brought up in this newsgroup.
>>
>>
>> Trimming of quotes and bottom posting has been STANDARD for usenet since
>> its inception in the 1980s.

And since my usenet use doesn't go back quite that far, that's what
I try to do . . . Except that I also add in the middle.

>>
>> It is only because of Microsoft which refused to adopt established
>> standards and set its defaults that trained a new generation to diverge
>> from established standards that we see folks not trimming abd top posting.

Well. . M$. . .

>>
>> (Apple MAIL in the iPhone is one such culprit).

Mail on the iPad also encourages it.

>>
> for a group such as this, Bottom post is preferred and the Norm. In a
> group dedicated strictly to support Top post should always the Norm. Lets
> you find out the latest suggestion with out having to scroll through
> previous suggestion or reading previous post to figure what's been tried.
>

I don't top post even for that in usegroups, but I'll start a new thread
for that if it bugs me enough.

> Bottom Post is the norm because a Bunch of people got together in the
> days Dial up paying for the Phone calls to the groups, and programs such as
> WhiteKnight/RedRyder and said this is how it shall be.
>
> But Internet has evolved well beyond those days. Thank goodness some
> things have become more realistic.

I know it's trickier selectively deleting on my iPad without losing proper
attribution, so I can believe it would be hard on a phone.

[Erilar]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <2013033118380954666-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,

.
>
> it doesn't run on lion and later but that's a separate issue. the
> person who mentioned it doesn't use lion.
>
>> ...and when I looked at the site I was decidedly unimpressed. As I said
>> I will stick to the Adobe products I am currently using, LR4 + CS5.
>
> it was mildly interesting a decade ago, but certainly not now.

I've been using it for WELL over a decade. It fits my needs and I don't
need the extra fancy stuff in the more expensive programs. I'm 78 and
unlikely to suddenly begin to need fancy stuff any time soon 8-)

[Erilar]

Paul Sture <nos...@sture.ch> wrote:
> In article <51588f51$0$26973$c3e8da3$3388...@news.astraweb.com>,
> JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>
>> iPhoto 09 has the ability to create a web photo album.
>>
>> File -> Export
>>
>> here is an example I did in about 15 seconds: (selected photos from a
>> bike trip to toronto in an album and "file export". Sorry my web site is
>> slow for uploads
>>
>> http://www.vaxination.ca/temp/apple/
>

> I saw each page drawing down the screen but I found the response times
> perfectly acceptable.

I have no use for a web album, but some people do.

[Erilar]

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> On 2013-03-30 17:53:43 -0700, Erilar <dra...@chibardun.netinvalid> said:
>
>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>>> On 2013-03-29 17:46:17 -0700, Erilar <dra...@chibardun.netinvalid> said:

>>>>> I'm quite happy with ColorIt! Which seems to be generally unknown.

>>>>> Strange! the only "Colorit" I can find via Google and the App Store, is
>>> an iPad app aimed at kids, 1-3 years old, and which doesn't exactly have
>>> much in the way of photo editing capability.
>>> < https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/tappie-colorit/id451018024?mt=8 >
>>>>> Please provide a link, I am always curious when it comes to graphics
>>>>> >> editing software.
>>>> It's not an iPad app at all. It's one of the grand and glorious lonely 3
>> pieces of software I find useful that has been upgraded over the years
>> without ever dropping anything useful when it adds something. The other
>> two are GC and PopChar.
>
> I understand that, but do a search for "Colorit" and see where it leads you.
>

> I asked you to please provide a link.

I had to go hunting, as I don't have it on iPad.
http://www.microfrontier.com Yes, I know Lion refuses it, so that's
another reason I'm avoiding Lion. It also kills AppleWorks, which I can at
least still access with Leopard and laboriously use not only for all the
stuff Pages CAN open, but for things they've thrown out of Pages. I don't
care much for Pages, but it is at least backward-compatible and has a vapid
iPad version.

[Erilar]

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> On 2013-03-30 17:53:31 -0700, Erilar <dra...@chibardun.netinvalid> said:
.
>>> Windoze? That's an insult of major proportions!
>
> Well, look at it, and tell me that wasn't created by a developer with his
> head mired in Windows of some 7-10 years ago.
> If you feel that opinion of mine was an insult of major proportions, so be it.
>
Never having used Windoze anything except under strong protest*, i don't
recognize any similarity. Back pre-Intel Mac I played around with a
version of PhotoShop and a couple other paint and photo-editing things, and
they didn't fill my needs as well as the then-current version of ColorIt!

*They made us use a Windoze mail garbage even on Macs at the school I
taught at once. It hogged several times the amount of disk space Eudora
needed, so I sent mail with Eudora so I only had to receive the clunky
stuff. That was even before my G4.