Looking for a quick photos' naming/labeling software

[guilbert...@gmail.com]

Hi all,

Nowadays where taking photos became very easy (from your camera, smartphone, webcam ...), I take hundred of pictures a month.

Unfortunately, I have no time to label all my photos correctly. I drop the photos in folders named with the date, place and a quick summary about what it is about.
I recently did a search and wanted to find a specific person on a photo which was taken at a specific date and it took me a while because the file name had not been personalized.

Do you know any kind of software which would automate file naming ?

I explain what I mean.

By using a tag system that you defined yourself:

* you tag all the photos taken in Los Angeles with "Los Angeles" tag,

* you tag the character name with the label "John Smith" if it's him,

* and of course, if you want the date / GPS coordinate, the software will find them itself from the EXIF fields.

According to all this informations, the software will automatically name the labeled photos like this:

2013-08-15 - Los Angeles - John Smith.jpg

Do you know a software doing that kind of thing ?
Of course it should be as easy to use as possible.

Thanks in advance for your help.

[Sandman]

In article <c4142234-83bd-44e8...@googlegroups.com>,

Yes and no. First off, what if you have two persons in the picture? Or
ten?

iPhoto/Aperture does all of this automatically. Automatic face
detection, and automatic city tagging based on GPS. You don't have to do
a thing. And works even when there's more than one person in the picture.

This way, you get a nice view of all the people you have in your library
(or album/project), like this:

http://sandman.net/files/faces.png

And also a map of all the countries, provinces, cities and places you've
taken pics at:

http://sandman.net/files/places.png

Of course, you can create smart folders that contain any combination of
this, like here:

http://sandman.net/files/tina_fuerteventura.png

You can pick your source, like a project or album, or the entire albu,.
You can add any searchable parameter, like "photos of Tina shot on the
Canary Islands with my 85mm lens that I've rated more than three stars"
and so on.

In the end - this doesn't rename your actual files, because this is
about the images, not the files. Why do you want to change the file
names?



--
Sandman[.net]

[DanP]

Picasa and DigiKam if you like them free.


DanP

[nospam]

In article <c4142234-83bd-44e8...@googlegroups.com>,
<guilbert...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Nowadays where taking photos became very easy (from your camera, smartphone,
> webcam ...), I take hundred of pictures a month.
>
> Unfortunately, I have no time to label all my photos correctly. I drop the
> photos in folders named with the date, place and a quick summary about what
> it is about.
> I recently did a search and wanted to find a specific person on a photo which
> was taken at a specific date and it took me a while because the file name had
> not been personalized.
>
> Do you know any kind of software which would automate file naming ?

get lightroom and let the computer do all that work for you. you can
tag images with whatever information you want and it tracks everything,
including keywords, dates, and location.

it also supports gps geotagging.

if you have a mac, iphoto or aperture can do face recognition and
identify who is in them (after a quick initial setup).

[Tony Cooper]

On Thu, 15 Aug 2013 12:28:38 -0700 (PDT), guilbert...@gmail.com
wrote:

The free photo viewer FastStone will do this for certain definitions
of "automatic". If you download your camera and allow whatever system
you're using to number the images the way it wants to, you can then
re-number all of the images in that file:

2013-08-15-Los Angeles-John Smith-101.jpg.

It will accept either text, as above, or $Y-$M-$D-Los Angeles-John
Smith-## to automatically use the date image was taken.

That becomes a problem if all of those images don't include John or
Los Angeles, but you can re-number any number of files within a
folder.

You can skip all the above and come up with a more automated system by
using Bridge to download, but that requires having full Photoshop.
Bridge is not included with Elements. I don't if the option of a
designated number/text file naming is available in the Elements
Organizer. Organizer does have a keyword system, though.

If you can pop for the price, Lightroom would solve your problem. You
can bring in all photos with the keywords attached of Los Angeles,
John Smith, and have them named with the date when bringing them in.







--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL

[guilbert...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, August 15, 2013 10:13:58 PM UTC+2, Sandman wrote:

> iPhoto/Aperture does all of this automatically.

I had a look on the web and on your screen shots and these tools seem great but I forgot to tell that I am working under Windows 7 and I found not Windows port.

> Why do you want to change the file name ?

I had 2 disks crashes in 25 years and when you try to recover the files, having the files named properly greatly help.

[guilbert...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, August 15, 2013 10:57:30 PM UTC+2, DanP wrote:

> Picasa and DigiKam if you like them free.

Thanks for the tools.
I am not fond of Google tools so I am going to look at DigiKam which seems to have a Windows port.

Does DigiKam is as good as iPhoto ?

[guilbert...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, August 15, 2013 11:52:26 PM UTC+2, Tony Cooper wrote:

> If you can pop for the price, Lightroom would solve your problem.

Thanks Tony,

Because I am a Windows 7 user and that I have Photoshop, I am going to try Lightroom.
I understood that facial recognition will make me gain a lot of time in the automatic photo naming task.
I was quite reticent at the begining because I heard that you could spend a huge amount of time to learn new faces to the software. Anyway, I will try and see ...

I did a list (with the web links) of the softwares you advised me here and some others I found:

FastStone - http://www.faststone.org
Bridge (Photoshop) - http://www.adobe.com/products/bridge.html
Elements Organizer (part of Photoshop Elements) - http://helpx.adobe.com/elements-organizer/topics.html
Lightroom - http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop-lightroom.html
iPhoto - http://www.apple.com/ilife/iphoto
Aperture - http://www.apple.com/aperture
Picasa - http://picasa.google.com
DigiKam - http://www.digikam.org
BlueMarine - http://sourceforge.net/projects/bluemarine
Bibble which became Corel AfterShot Pro - http://www.corel.com/corel/pages/index.jsp?pgid=12800164

[Savageduck]

On 2013-08-16 12:12:59 -0700, guilbert...@gmail.com said:

> On Thursday, August 15, 2013 11:52:26 PM UTC+2, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>> If you can pop for the price, Lightroom would solve your problem.
>
> Thanks Tony,
>
> Because I am a Windows 7 user and that I have Photoshop, I am going to
> try Lightroom.

Lightroom is the way to go, but since you have Photoshop (you don't
tell us which version) Bridge in CS5 & CS6 has been more than capable
of doing what you want. However, Lightroom does it in a simpler and
better way.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 16 Aug 2013 12:12:59 -0700 (PDT), guilbert...@gmail.com
wrote:

Lightroom would be beneficial to you if you have a significant enough
number of photos to keep track of. Based on what you told us, just
make sure you import the photos with keywords assigned in the import
process. That will save you the trouble of adding keywords later.

Set your keywords up before you import, or upload, or download, or
whatever you call moving the images from your camera to the computer.
You can add keywords to your extant images, though.

Give some thought to your keyword structure before you start. While
you can add, delete, and change keywords, a good plan at the beginning
will save you time and effort down the road.

For the photos you already have on your hard drive, that you will
import into Lightroom, pay particular attention to the fact that
Lightroom will associate those photos with the folders from which you
import them. If you later move the photos on your hard drive to
another folder, or re-name that folder, Lightroom will not be able to
find them if you do it outside of Lightroom. The thumbnail in
Lightroom will show a ? mark.

If you make the changes in Lightroom, this won't be a problem.

It's best to pre-organize your existing photos into one file/folder
system that you won't change in the future in any program other than
Lightroom. Naturally, back-up that file/folder system.

If you have a full version of Photoshop, I wouldn't suggest you even
consider adding Elements/Organizer. Organizer is an OK system for
people with a limited number of photos and keywording needs, but it
doesn't compare to Lightroom. The only advantage of
Elements/Organizer is that Elements is a good editing system at a
very reasonable price for those that don't have a full Photoshop
version.

[guilbert...@gmail.com]

On Friday, August 16, 2013 10:19:30 PM UTC+2, Tony Cooper wrote:

> Lightroom would be beneficial to you if you have a significant enough number of photos to keep track of.

I already have 32000 photos to name. Actually, they are just ordered by dates and directories named with a short summary of the scenes.

> Based on what you told us, just make sure you import the photos with keywords assigned in the import process.

Thanks very much for sharing your experience.
I will pay attention to all your advices.

[guilbert...@gmail.com]

On Friday, August 16, 2013 9:45:11 PM UTC+2, Savageduck wrote:

> Lightroom is the way to go, but since you have Photoshop (you don't
> tell us which version) Bridge in CS5 & CS6 has been more than capable
> of doing what you want. However, Lightroom does it in a simpler and
> better way.

I have Photoshop CS5.

[Savageduck]

In that case you already own a pretty powerful piece of cataloging software.

With Bridge you can assign "Keywords" in categories such as events,
people, places, & other keywords. You can rate images, and sort and
search for images based on different criteria, much as in Lightroom
which is Bridge on steroids. So I would take a look at what you have on
your computer right now. Any keywords you assign in Bridge are going to
be available in Lightroom.

Having said that, I use Lightroom 4 and Photoshop CS6. I primarily use
Lightroom for cataloging, and now most of my primary adjustments, but I
still find myself using Bridge for some tasks.



--
Regards,

Savageduck

[nospam]

In article <rv0t09tq64c4sumlu...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper

<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Give some thought to your keyword structure before you start. While
> you can add, delete, and change keywords, a good plan at the beginning
> will save you time and effort down the road.

true, but it's easy to change them at any time.

> For the photos you already have on your hard drive, that you will
> import into Lightroom, pay particular attention to the fact that
> Lightroom will associate those photos with the folders from which you
> import them. If you later move the photos on your hard drive to
> another folder, or re-name that folder, Lightroom will not be able to
> find them if you do it outside of Lightroom. The thumbnail in
> Lightroom will show a ? mark.

trivial to re-connect lightroom to the photos. it takes maybe a few
seconds, tops.

> If you make the changes in Lightroom, this won't be a problem.
>
> It's best to pre-organize your existing photos into one file/folder
> system that you won't change in the future in any program other than
> Lightroom. Naturally, back-up that file/folder system.

best for you maybe, but certainly not best for others.

for someone who uses lightroom, that's a complete waste of time that
could be better spent keywording, rating photos or something else
that's useful.

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 16 Aug 2013 20:44:27 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <rv0t09tq64c4sumlu...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
><tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Give some thought to your keyword structure before you start. While
>> you can add, delete, and change keywords, a good plan at the beginning
>> will save you time and effort down the road.
>
>true, but it's easy to change them at any time.

If it's true, and that I said they can be added, deleted, and changed,
then why stick your oar in? I made a suggestion to make it easy; to
let the computer do the work.

>
>> For the photos you already have on your hard drive, that you will
>> import into Lightroom, pay particular attention to the fact that
>> Lightroom will associate those photos with the folders from which you
>> import them. If you later move the photos on your hard drive to
>> another folder, or re-name that folder, Lightroom will not be able to
>> find them if you do it outside of Lightroom. The thumbnail in
>> Lightroom will show a ? mark.
>
>trivial to re-connect lightroom to the photos. it takes maybe a few
>seconds, tops.

No, it is not trivial. LR will tell you where the image *was*, not
where it is. Move the files around and re-name or combine some
folders, and you'll spend hours hunting for the image.

Why would you possibly want to mislead this fellow? Your need to
argue overcomes your common sense. Good organization and planning
before importing images that are already on the hard drive will save
him time and aggravation. You preach "let the computer do it for
you", and then you argue with a pre-plan that could allow the computer
to do it for him.

>> If you make the changes in Lightroom, this won't be a problem.
>>
>> It's best to pre-organize your existing photos into one file/folder
>> system that you won't change in the future in any program other than
>> Lightroom. Naturally, back-up that file/folder system.
>
>best for you maybe, but certainly not best for others.

What? Pre-organizing is good for me but not good for someone else?
You are arguing that a pre-plan is not good?

>for someone who uses lightroom, that's a complete waste of time that
>could be better spent keywording, rating photos or something else
>that's useful.

He says he has 32,000 files already that he might want to import to
Lightroom, and you want him to plunge in without any pre-planning?

With a little pre-planning he'll be able to batch them into groups
that will allow multiple keywords on import.

Don't talk to me, nospam. If you have anything helpful to offer,
address your comments to him. Otherwise, you are doing what you do
99% of the time, and that's naysaying the helpful advice others give
and not providing any helpful advice yourself.

This is your usual style: never help the individual who asks for
help, but create false arguments in response to those who do attempt
to help.

[PeterN]

Then please explain the process. I used LR at one time, but thought it
was not worth upgrading. All my photos are in a sub-folder of a folder I
haave named: my Lightroom\photos\ a

--
PeterN

[nospam]

In article <3ckt09dgt7faejv36...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper

<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> Give some thought to your keyword structure before you start. While
> >> you can add, delete, and change keywords, a good plan at the beginning
> >> will save you time and effort down the road.
> >
> >true, but it's easy to change them at any time.
>
> If it's true, and that I said they can be added, deleted, and changed,
> then why stick your oar in? I made a suggestion to make it easy; to
> let the computer do the work.

you didn't say how trivial it is and that it doesn't really save any
time later on. it's trivial to change keywords. it's not something to
worry about.

> >> For the photos you already have on your hard drive, that you will
> >> import into Lightroom, pay particular attention to the fact that
> >> Lightroom will associate those photos with the folders from which you
> >> import them. If you later move the photos on your hard drive to
> >> another folder, or re-name that folder, Lightroom will not be able to
> >> find them if you do it outside of Lightroom. The thumbnail in
> >> Lightroom will show a ? mark.
> >
> >trivial to re-connect lightroom to the photos. it takes maybe a few
> >seconds, tops.
>
> No, it is not trivial.

it's very trivial. a couple of clicks and it's done. as i said, it
takes a couple of seconds, at most.

> LR will tell you where the image *was*, not
> where it is. Move the files around and re-name or combine some
> folders, and you'll spend hours hunting for the image.

photos do not move by themselves. point lightroom at the new location
and it will update to the new location.

as for renaming, the actual file name is irrelevant. there isn't a need
to rename it, but should there be some bizarre reason why, rename it
*in* lightroom. don't use explorer or finder (which is just another
app).

> Why would you possibly want to mislead this fellow?

i'd ask *you* that.

i'm not misleading him at all. the parts i commented on are not the
best way to do things, even if they work for you. your way is not the
only way. it's the way *you* might like to work but it's not the way to
best use lightroom.

> Your need to
> argue overcomes your common sense. Good organization and planning
> before importing images that are already on the hard drive will save
> him time and aggravation. You preach "let the computer do it for
> you", and then you argue with a pre-plan that could allow the computer
> to do it for him.

what i describe *is* common sense. if you have an app designed to
organize and manage assets, why not use it to its fullest extent?
duplicating what it does is just dumb.

lightroom does the organization *for* you and does a much better job of
it, giving you more time for other more important and/or more
interesting stuff.

for some reason you want to circumvent that, which *adds* more work.

> >> If you make the changes in Lightroom, this won't be a problem.
> >>
> >> It's best to pre-organize your existing photos into one file/folder
> >> system that you won't change in the future in any program other than
> >> Lightroom. Naturally, back-up that file/folder system.
> >
> >best for you maybe, but certainly not best for others.
>
> What? Pre-organizing is good for me but not good for someone else?
> You are arguing that a pre-plan is not good?

you're duplicating what lightroom does. it's a waste of time. there is
no need to organize files on the hard drive any more than they already
are.

create the groups and keywords and whatever else *in* lightroom and let
lightroom worry about where the actual files are.

> >for someone who uses lightroom, that's a complete waste of time that
> >could be better spent keywording, rating photos or something else
> >that's useful.
>
> He says he has 32,000 files already that he might want to import to
> Lightroom, and you want him to plunge in without any pre-planning?

preplanning is fine, but do it *in* lightroom, not outside of it.
that's what lightroom is for and at and what it's good at.

what you're advocating is doubling the work, and for no reason.

> With a little pre-planning he'll be able to batch them into groups
> that will allow multiple keywords on import.

he can still do that. i rather doubt he has one folder with 32000
photos in it. drag each subfolder one by one. that's probably what
someone would do in that situation anyway.

> Don't talk to me, nospam. If you have anything helpful to offer,
> address your comments to him. Otherwise, you are doing what you do
> 99% of the time, and that's naysaying the helpful advice others give
> and not providing any helpful advice yourself.

your advice is misleading or even bad. my comments *are* for him, so
that he can take full advantage of using lightroom.

you are the one who *likes* work because you have so much free time
(that's the excuse you always give), which explains why you do things
in such a convoluted manner. you need something to *do*.

what i describe reduces work because i'd rather let the computer do the
boring mundane tasks.

> This is your usual style: never help the individual who asks for
> help, but create false arguments in response to those who do attempt
> to help.

bullshit. your style is to reject anything i say, even when it's
helpful. i don't know why you do it, but it sure doesn't help anyone.

[nospam]

In article <kuml6...@news6.newsguy.com>, PeterN

<peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote:

> >> It's best to pre-organize your existing photos into one file/folder
> >> system that you won't change in the future in any program other than
> >> Lightroom. Naturally, back-up that file/folder system.
> >
> > best for you maybe, but certainly not best for others.
> >
> > for someone who uses lightroom, that's a complete waste of time that
> > could be better spent keywording, rating photos or something else
> > that's useful.
>
> Then please explain the process. I used LR at one time, but thought it
> was not worth upgrading. All my photos are in a sub-folder of a folder I
> haave named: my Lightroom\photos\ a

import to lightroom, add keywords and ratings as needed. lightroom
takes care of everything else, including where the files are (so you
don't have to worry about it) as well as sorting by date, location,
camera type and camera settings.

if that is not good enough, then you can also group them any way you
want (collections). one photo can be in more than one collection
(without copying and wondering which version is which). collections can
also be smart, such as photos rated 3 * or better and taken in paris.

upload selected photos directly to online services. in the event a
photo requires additional work than lightroom's adjustments can provide
(rare, but it happens), round-trip it to photoshop and lightroom
handles everything and manages the changes for you.

apps such as iphoto and aperture also have facial recognition and you
can search on individual people. it identifies the photos with faces in
them and you only need to tell it the names in a few of them. then it
applies that information to the rest of the library. if it's not sure
on someone's identity, it will ask to confirm, and the more you confirm
the more accurate it gets. it doesn't take that many to become quite
accurate. this information carries to iphones and ipads too. the
original poster may not be able to run these but the features are
available for those who can.

there are numerous videos and other tutorials online that walk you
through any of this and a whole lot more.

[Sandman]

In article <97dc74e7-a029-4c53...@googlegroups.com>,

guilbert...@gmail.com wrote:

> > iPhoto/Aperture does all of this automatically.
>
> I had a look on the web and on your screen shots and these tools seem great
> but I forgot to tell that I am working under Windows 7 and I found not
> Windows port.

No, they are mac-only. I don't know if there is any free software
(iPhoto is free, comes with every Mac) that does this, especially not
for Windows.

> > Why do you want to change the file name ?
>
> I had 2 disks crashes in 25 years and when you try to recover the files,
> having the files named properly greatly help.

Oh, well. Then my best advice is; Get a Mac, fast. You buy a nice Mac
laptop and a Time Machine that is also a wifi router, then you have
every-hour automatic backup and you get iPhoto that will sort and deal
with all your images automatically and effortlessly. And all data will
always be backed up so you can restore it when and if bad things happen.

File naming isn't a safeguard against disk crashes, proper backup is :)

When (or rather, if) your Mac disk crashes, you just insert a new blank
disk, start it in install mode and install the operating system again on
the new disk, and during the install process it will ask you if you want
to start from new or restore from another Mac, a backup disk or a Time
Machine. Click Time Machine and wait while it copies your entire
previous setup to the disk, and when it's done, you're up and running as
if nothing had happened.

Obviously a HUGE time saver.



--
Sandman[.net]

[Sandman]

In article <03ae3d4a-bf9f-40d2...@googlegroups.com>,

In a word; no. DigiKam is a Linux application ported to Windows/OSX, and
is incredibly buggy under Windows.

The best photo management application you can get for Windows is
probably Adobe Lightroom, but doesn't have faces support, unfortunately.


--
Sandman[.net]

[Sandman]

In article <be1c10db-9cc6-444f...@googlegroups.com>,

guilbert...@gmail.com wrote:

> > If you can pop for the price, Lightroom would solve your problem.
>
> Thanks Tony,
>
> Because I am a Windows 7 user and that I have Photoshop, I am going to try
> Lightroom.
> I understood that facial recognition will make me gain a lot of time in the
> automatic photo naming task.

True, but Lightroom doesn't have face recognition.

As far as I know, the only solid photo management application that does
is iPhoto and Aperture, both Mac-only.

Anyone else can correct me if I'm wrong.


--
Sandman[.net]

[guilbert...@gmail.com]

I forgot to mention that most of the image organizers store the metadata in a separate database file which can easily be corrupted or unlinked from your pictures' directory structure.

[guilbert...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, August 17, 2013 12:26:33 PM UTC+2, Sandman wrote:

> The best photo management application you can get for Windows is probably Adobe Lightroom, but doesn't have faces support, unfortunately.

Yes, I just realized that LR has no face recognition while it was my first criteria so I am not going to use it.

It seems that Aperture is actually the best face recognition software but I don't want to buy a Mac just for this (and there is no MacOS emulator under Windows).

[J. Clarke]

In article <f0f7c85a-e361-4f70...@googlegroups.com>,
guilbert...@gmail.com says...

It's possible to make OS/X run under several varieties of virtualization
software. You generally need a processor with the "VT" extensions to
make it happen.

It will run directly on many PCs as well.

[guilbert...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, August 17, 2013 4:38:36 PM UTC+2, J. Clarke wrote:

> It's possible to make OS/X run under several varieties of virtualization
> software. You generally need a processor with the "VT" extensions to
> make it happen.
>
> It will run directly on many PCs as well.

My Q6600 Intel CPU supports virtualization but I read there was no official way to run OSX over a Windows OS.

[guilbert...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, August 17, 2013 4:52:34 PM UTC+2, guilbert...@gmail.com wrote:

> My Q6600 Intel CPU supports virtualization but I read there was no official way to run OSX over a Windows OS.

By official way, I mean running a virtualized OSX over Windows in a way that is supported by Apple.

[Sandman]

In article <f0f7c85a-e361-4f70...@googlegroups.com>,

Aperture/iPhoto uses the same system (and can both open each other
libraries) and iPhoto is free with every Mac. But I can totally
understand that getting a new computer just to be able to organize your
photos is a bit over the top :)




--
Sandman[.net]

[Sandman]

In article <MPG.2c7954f6b...@news.newsguy.com>,

Given the fact that it is unsupported and you need a hacked version of
OSX to run it in virtualization, I think "directly" is the wrong word to
use here :)


--
Sandman[.net]

[J. Clarke]

In article <64fe9226-f3ba-4f47...@googlegroups.com>,
guilbert...@gmail.com says...

There is no "official way" because Apple wants to sell you their
overpriced hardware. Google "hackintosh virtual" and you'll find quite
a lot of success stories and howtos.

[J. Clarke]

In article <50f3ed9b-75cc-433b...@googlegroups.com>,
guilbert...@gmail.com says...

>
> On Saturday, August 17, 2013 4:52:34 PM UTC+2, guilbert...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > My Q6600 Intel CPU supports virtualization but I read there was no official way to run OSX over a Windows OS.
>
> By official way, I mean running a virtualized OSX over Windows in a way that is supported by Apple.

Why do you need it to be supported by Apple?

[PeterN]

This in not exactly trivial, to do with thousandth of images, some of
which are sorted by date taken. I can locate most in Bridge.

When you sy ot up load to onlne services, are you talking aobut for
backup purposes?

> apps such as iphoto and aperture also have facial recognition and you
> can search on individual people. it identifies the photos with faces in
> them and you only need to tell it the names in a few of them. then it
> applies that information to the rest of the library. if it's not sure
> on someone's identity, it will ask to confirm, and the more you confirm
> the more accurate it gets. it doesn't take that many to become quite
> accurate. this information carries to iphones and ipads too. the
> original poster may not be able to run these but the features are
> available for those who can.

Thank you for that information, but, I have zero interest in facial
recognition.

>
> there are numerous videos and other tutorials online that walk you
> through any of this and a whole lot more.
>

My issue is me. When I rely on any IT system, I like to have a plan B,
in case of IT failure. And we both know that happens.

I know someone wh was foolishly using FB for image storage. Someone
hacked the account; used it in violation of policy; the account was
closed, and all images were lost.

--
PeterN

[nospam]

In article <mr-1519FF.12...@News.Individual.NET>, Sandman

<m...@sandman.net> wrote:

> As far as I know, the only solid photo management application that does
> is iPhoto and Aperture, both Mac-only.

picasa does face recogntion but i've never used it so i have no idea if
it's any good.

[nospam]

In article <e5d2865b-ce50-4ef0...@googlegroups.com>,

<guilbert...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I forgot to mention that most of the image organizers store the metadata in a
> separate database file which can easily be corrupted or unlinked from your
> pictures' directory structure.

anything can get corrupted. that's why you make backups. also, the
database file won't become unlinked in normal use. you have to work at
it for that to happen.

[Sandman]

In article <170820131131386951%nos...@nospam.invalid>,

Ah, right you are. No, I haven't used lately it either. Picasa was a
terrible application last I used it.


--
Sandman[.net]

[Sandman]

In article <MPG.2c7961015...@news.newsguy.com>,

"J. Clarke" <jclark...@cox.net> wrote:

> > My Q6600 Intel CPU supports virtualization but I read there was no official
> > way to run OSX over a Windows OS.
>
> There is no "official way" because Apple wants to sell you their
> overpriced hardware.

"overpriced"? That old myth again, huh? :)


--
Sandman[.net]

[nospam]

In article <kuo4s...@news7.newsguy.com>, PeterN

<peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote:

> This in not exactly trivial, to do with thousandth of images, some of
> which are sorted by date taken. I can locate most in Bridge.

the date is in the exif data and lightroom will automatically sort it
for you.

in other words, you could drag the entire batch into lightroom in one
step and not lose the date sorting at all.

there may be other reasons to not do it all at once, but sorting by
date is certainly not one of them.

> When you sy ot up load to onlne services, are you talking aobut for
> backup purposes?

flickr, smugmug, facebook, etc., and lightroom handles the logging in
and file transfer for you. lightroom can also create a web gallery to
upload to your own server too. many options.

> > apps such as iphoto and aperture also have facial recognition and you
> > can search on individual people. it identifies the photos with faces in
> > them and you only need to tell it the names in a few of them. then it
> > applies that information to the rest of the library. if it's not sure
> > on someone's identity, it will ask to confirm, and the more you confirm
> > the more accurate it gets. it doesn't take that many to become quite
> > accurate. this information carries to iphones and ipads too. the
> > original poster may not be able to run these but the features are
> > available for those who can.
>
> Thank you for that information, but, I have zero interest in facial
> recognition.

others might.

> > there are numerous videos and other tutorials online that walk you
> > through any of this and a whole lot more.
>
> My issue is me. When I rely on any IT system, I like to have a plan B,
> in case of IT failure. And we both know that happens.

make backups, which can be done automatically.

> I know someone wh was foolishly using FB for image storage. Someone
> hacked the account; used it in violation of policy; the account was
> closed, and all images were lost.

what does that have to do with anything?

[nospam]

In article <MPG.2c796127...@news.newsguy.com>, J. Clarke

<jclark...@cox.net> wrote:

> > By official way, I mean running a virtualized OSX over Windows in a way
> > that is supported by Apple.
>
> Why do you need it to be supported by Apple?

because otherwise it doesn't work all that well and getting it to work
is additional effort that could be better spent doing more important
things.

[Sandman]

In article <kuo4s...@news7.newsguy.com>,
PeterN <peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote:

> > apps such as iphoto and aperture also have facial recognition and you
> > can search on individual people. it identifies the photos with faces in
> > them and you only need to tell it the names in a few of them. then it
> > applies that information to the rest of the library. if it's not sure
> > on someone's identity, it will ask to confirm, and the more you confirm
> > the more accurate it gets. it doesn't take that many to become quite
> > accurate. this information carries to iphones and ipads too. the
> > original poster may not be able to run these but the features are
> > available for those who can.
>
> Thank you for that information, but, I have zero interest in facial
> recognition.

But the *OP* apparently has great interest in it.



--
Sandman[.net]

[PeterN]

Agreed. I had tried an early version of LR, I don't remember if it was 2
or 3. I didn't like it. Evan after I uninstalled the program vestiges
kept coming up. I finally did a manual registry clean and physical
deletion of folders.

LR is a good program, but just doesn't seem to help my workflow.



--
PeterN

[nospam]

In article <kuo6c...@news6.newsguy.com>, PeterN

<peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote:

> >> I forgot to mention that most of the image organizers store the metadata
> >> in a separate database file which can easily be corrupted or unlinked from
> >> your pictures' directory structure.
> >
> > anything can get corrupted. that's why you make backups. also, the
> > database file won't become unlinked in normal use. you have to work at
> > it for that to happen.
>
> Agreed. I had tried an early version of LR, I don't remember if it was 2
> or 3. I didn't like it. Evan after I uninstalled the program vestiges
> kept coming up. I finally did a manual registry clean and physical
> deletion of folders.

what does that have to do with database corruption?

> LR is a good program, but just doesn't seem to help my workflow.

that's fine, but i don't think you've given it a fair shake.

[PeterN]

On 8/17/2013 11:43 AM, nospam wrote:
> In article <kuo4s...@news7.newsguy.com>, PeterN
> <peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> This in not exactly trivial, to do with thousandth of images, some of
>> which are sorted by date taken. I can locate most in Bridge.
>
> the date is in the exif data and lightroom will automatically sort it
> for you.
>
> in other words, you could drag the entire batch into lightroom in one
> step and not lose the date sorting at all.
>
> there may be other reasons to not do it all at once, but sorting by
> date is certainly not one of them.
>
>> When you sy ot up load to onlne services, are you talking aobut for
>> backup purposes?
>
> flickr, smugmug, facebook, etc., and lightroom handles the logging in
> and file transfer for you. lightroom can also create a web gallery to
> upload to your own server too. many options.
>

OK. i thought yu were talking about useing the online services for backup.

>>> apps such as iphoto and aperture also have facial recognition and you
>>> can search on individual people. it identifies the photos with faces in
>>> them and you only need to tell it the names in a few of them. then it
>>> applies that information to the rest of the library. if it's not sure
>>> on someone's identity, it will ask to confirm, and the more you confirm
>>> the more accurate it gets. it doesn't take that many to become quite
>>> accurate. this information carries to iphones and ipads too. the
>>> original poster may not be able to run these but the features are
>>> available for those who can.
>>
>> Thank you for that information, but, I have zero interest in facial
>> recognition.
>
> others might.

True.

>
>>> there are numerous videos and other tutorials online that walk you
>>> through any of this and a whole lot more.
>>
>> My issue is me. When I rely on any IT system, I like to have a plan B,
>> in case of IT failure. And we both know that happens.
>
> make backups, which can be done automatically.
>

I do that regularly, with Acronis.

>> I know someone wh was foolishly using FB for image storage. Someone
>> hacked the account; used it in violation of policy; the account was
>> closed, and all images were lost.
>
> what does that have to do with anything?
>

Just an example of why I don't rely on cloud storage.


--
PeterN

[PeterN]

On 8/17/2013 12:03 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <kuo6c...@news6.newsguy.com>, PeterN
> <peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>>> I forgot to mention that most of the image organizers store the metadata
>>>> in a separate database file which can easily be corrupted or unlinked from
>>>> your pictures' directory structure.
>>>
>>> anything can get corrupted. that's why you make backups. also, the
>>> database file won't become unlinked in normal use. you have to work at
>>> it for that to happen.
>>
>> Agreed. I had tried an early version of LR, I don't remember if it was 2
>> or 3. I didn't like it. Evan after I uninstalled the program vestiges
>> kept coming up. I finally did a manual registry clean and physical
>> deletion of folders.
>
> what does that have to do with database corruption?

You brought up the issue. Iagree with you. You attack. Wow!

>
>> LR is a good program, but just doesn't seem to help my workflow.
>
> that's fine, but i don't think you've given it a fair shake.

And the basis for your conclusion is?




--
PeterN

[Tony Cooper]

On Sat, 17 Aug 2013 02:37:46 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

Top-posting here, because interleaved posting isn't necessary.

This is typical of nospam. Instead of making any effort to help the
questioner by posting a direct reply, this self-appointed expert in
Lightroom replies to those actually providing information to the
questioner with some petty comments.

nospam has outdone himself in ridiculous comments in order to argue.
Discouraging pre-planning before embarking on a huge project is about
as silly a thing as he has every come up with.

The questioner has stated that he has 32,000 images in a Windows-based
folder/file system. He's stated that location, date, and
identification of the people in the photographs are important to him
and that he is looking for a better way to manage his inventory of
photos.

Pre-planning, which is just mental consideration of the task and what
he wants to accomplish, is essential.

Keyword planning, for example. Any aspect of a photo can be a
keyword, but the objective of searching by keyword is to locate those
aspects that the user is going to want to find. For example, if the
locations are all over the country, the user may want to use
"California" as a keyword and "San Francisco" as a keyword under
"California". Rather than have keywords for every California city
where a photo was taken, it may suffice to pull out just certain
cities separately, but have "California" pull all California cities.

Names of subjects in the photos is another area where pre-planning can
help. Do you really need a keyword for every individual?

In a typical family Catalog, it may suffice to keyword all photos with
a keyword that designates the immediate family only...father, mother,
children. There may or may not be a reason to keyword each. Other
keywords may designate all of the wife's relatives, all of the
husband's relatives, and all non-related close friends. Whether or
not individuals in each group need be keyworded separately is a choice
to be considered, and that can be added later putting in a keyword
under the primary keyword.

A little planning in advance will simplify bringing in those 32,000
images with a basic keyword list structure. Further breakdowns can be
added later.

Pre-planning the whole import process, with 32,000 images, should be
thought out in advance. Does the user want to import all 32,000 at
once, or folder by folder?

Pre-planning the original folder/file structure should be considered.
Files can be re-named or moved in LR, but it's going to an overall
simpler process to make sure the folder/file structure is workable in
the first place.

On other points nospam made:

It is not trivial to change keywords in LR. It is simple to change
*a* keyword, or *a group* of keywords, but it is not simple to change
100s of images if the initial keyword structure is to be changed.
Doing it right in the first place is the simple way.

It is far from trivial to locate images if the folder/file system is
changed after those photos have been imported. LR tells you where the
file was, but not where it is if the folder/file structure has been
changed outside of LR. The user has to navigate to the image and tell
LR "This is it". That's not "a couple of clicks". The clicks are
done *after* what can be a time-consuming search. The user can only
point LR to the image after you find it. LR won't help the user find
it.

That folder/file system should not be changed in any way outside of
LR. All changes should be made in LR.

nospam uses "irrelevant" to mean "It's not important to nospam". It's
all about him. Some of us *do* see a need to re-name files. Photos
are downloaded and numbered in the sequence in which they were shot.
Personally, I like to rearrange that sequence sometimes to put shots
together so they appear in sequence by subject. I may change
2013-08-17-86 to 2013-08-17-22B so it appears next to another shot of
the same subject. LR displays my images in a ascending order by file
number. As long as this is done in LR, not in the folder/file
structure, this is no problem. LR changes that file in the
folder/file structure to this new number.

I don't re-sequence images all the time, but I might in a large group
of images where I want to select only a few representative images for
another use like printing or putting them in a SmugMug or Dropbox
gallery. I can use rating tags to pull those images together, but I
prefer to group them so I can see all six of (x) next to each other in
the Library pane and choose which one I want to extract.

While this might not be what others do, I do things the way they are
most convenient for me, and LR allows me to do that.

There is never a disadvantage to pre-planning a large project. To do
it later, as nospam suggests, can result in disaster or total
confusion. Excessive time and effort can be expended correcting
things. Not necessarily correcting errors, but correcting a system
that was poorly planned.

One would hope that someday nospam would start responding directly to
people who ask for help and provide workable suggestions to them
instead of waiting for others to try to help and then making
argumentitive comments. And, start making concrete suggestions
instead of meaningless platitudes likes "It's trivial" or "Let the
computer do the work for you".









>In article <3ckt09dgt7faejv36...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
><tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> Give some thought to your keyword structure before you start. While
>> >> you can add, delete, and change keywords, a good plan at the beginning
>> >> will save you time and effort down the road.
>> >
>> >true, but it's easy to change them at any time.
>>
>> If it's true, and that I said they can be added, deleted, and changed,
>> then why stick your oar in? I made a suggestion to make it easy; to
>> let the computer do the work.
>
>you didn't say how trivial it is and that it doesn't really save any
>time later on. it's trivial to change keywords. it's not something to
>worry about.
>
>> >> For the photos you already have on your hard drive, that you will
>> >> import into Lightroom, pay particular attention to the fact that
>> >> Lightroom will associate those photos with the folders from which you
>> >> import them. If you later move the photos on your hard drive to
>> >> another folder, or re-name that folder, Lightroom will not be able to
>> >> find them if you do it outside of Lightroom. The thumbnail in
>> >> Lightroom will show a ? mark.
>> >
>> >trivial to re-connect lightroom to the photos. it takes maybe a few
>> >seconds, tops.
>>
>> No, it is not trivial.
>
>it's very trivial. a couple of clicks and it's done. as i said, it
>takes a couple of seconds, at most.
>
>> LR will tell you where the image *was*, not
>> where it is. Move the files around and re-name or combine some
>> folders, and you'll spend hours hunting for the image.
>
>photos do not move by themselves. point lightroom at the new location
>and it will update to the new location.
>
>as for renaming, the actual file name is irrelevant. there isn't a need
>to rename it, but should there be some bizarre reason why, rename it
>*in* lightroom. don't use explorer or finder (which is just another
>app).
>
>> Why would you possibly want to mislead this fellow?
>
>i'd ask *you* that.
>
>i'm not misleading him at all. the parts i commented on are not the
>best way to do things, even if they work for you. your way is not the
>only way. it's the way *you* might like to work but it's not the way to
>best use lightroom.
>
>> Your need to
>> argue overcomes your common sense. Good organization and planning
>> before importing images that are already on the hard drive will save
>> him time and aggravation. You preach "let the computer do it for
>> you", and then you argue with a pre-plan that could allow the computer
>> to do it for him.
>
>what i describe *is* common sense. if you have an app designed to
>organize and manage assets, why not use it to its fullest extent?
>duplicating what it does is just dumb.
>
>lightroom does the organization *for* you and does a much better job of
>it, giving you more time for other more important and/or more
>interesting stuff.
>
>for some reason you want to circumvent that, which *adds* more work.
>
>> >> If you make the changes in Lightroom, this won't be a problem.

>> >>
>> >> It's best to pre-organize your existing photos into one file/folder
>> >> system that you won't change in the future in any program other than
>> >> Lightroom. Naturally, back-up that file/folder system.
>> >
>> >best for you maybe, but certainly not best for others.
>>

>> What? Pre-organizing is good for me but not good for someone else?
>> You are arguing that a pre-plan is not good?
>
>you're duplicating what lightroom does. it's a waste of time. there is
>no need to organize files on the hard drive any more than they already
>are.
>
>create the groups and keywords and whatever else *in* lightroom and let
>lightroom worry about where the actual files are.

>
>> >for someone who uses lightroom, that's a complete waste of time that
>> >could be better spent keywording, rating photos or something else
>> >that's useful.
>>

>> He says he has 32,000 files already that he might want to import to
>> Lightroom, and you want him to plunge in without any pre-planning?
>
>preplanning is fine, but do it *in* lightroom, not outside of it.
>that's what lightroom is for and at and what it's good at.
>
>what you're advocating is doubling the work, and for no reason.
>
>> With a little pre-planning he'll be able to batch them into groups
>> that will allow multiple keywords on import.
>
>he can still do that. i rather doubt he has one folder with 32000
>photos in it. drag each subfolder one by one. that's probably what
>someone would do in that situation anyway.
>
>> Don't talk to me, nospam. If you have anything helpful to offer,
>> address your comments to him. Otherwise, you are doing what you do
>> 99% of the time, and that's naysaying the helpful advice others give
>> and not providing any helpful advice yourself.
>
>your advice is misleading or even bad. my comments *are* for him, so
>that he can take full advantage of using lightroom.
>
>you are the one who *likes* work because you have so much free time
>(that's the excuse you always give), which explains why you do things
>in such a convoluted manner. you need something to *do*.
>
>what i describe reduces work because i'd rather let the computer do the
>boring mundane tasks.
>
>> This is your usual style: never help the individual who asks for
>> help, but create false arguments in response to those who do attempt
>> to help.
>
>bullshit. your style is to reject anything i say, even when it's
>helpful. i don't know why you do it, but it sure doesn't help anyone.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL

[Ghost-Rider]

Le 17/08/2013 17:31, nospam a ï¿œcrit :

> picasa does face recogntion but i've never used it so i have no idea if
> it's any good.
>

It's extremely efficient and fast.
Picasa will recognize children from photos of adults, even babies !
No kidding, no cheating :
http://cjoint.com/13au/CHrtqlyylXF_screen_capture_17082013_191400.jpg.
It's really baffling ! It will find minute people in hidden corners of
the photos and name them !
Picasa is a fantastic non-destructive software, full of goodies, very
easy and fast to use. I have PS, PSP, Raw Therapee, Nikon View, XN View,
DXO Optics Pro etc.. I practically never use them unless for very
specific tasks, like local corrections (take that hat off and rebuild
the hair) or adjusting the perspective of that cathedral. For everything
else : light, colors, contrast, WB, reframing, tagging, labelling,
organizing, localizing, video etc.. I only use Picasa.
Picasa and the Explorer work hand in hand. Any change in one is
instantly carried out in the other.
It connects to Google + albums very easily.
Some people don't want to use Picasa because :
- it explores the hard disk on install and finds all the image files,
even the ones that were lost forever ; that can be by-passed,
- it is a Google software and they think Google is too intrusive ; but
you're not obliged to have a Google account.

[guilbert...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, August 17, 2013 5:30:32 PM UTC+2, J. Clarke wrote:

> Why do you need it to be supported by Apple?

I do not want to run a hacked OSX image running in a VM (VMWare, VirtualBox, etc ...) over Windows like those you can find on Internet.
If Apple provides an official solution for running MacOS on a Windows computer, I will use this one.

Anyway, I think it is a bit complicated for my need.
I finally decided to use Google Picasa specially for its facial recognition feature.

[guilbert...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, August 17, 2013 5:31:38 PM UTC+2, nospam wrote:

> picasa does face recogntion but i've never used it so i have no idea if it's any good.

I finally installed Picasa, tried it and it worked great for facial recognition : the software recognize face even when the picture is distorted, blurred, too dark, noisy ...
You need to tell him at first and then it works on its own.

This is Google application so I suppose that one time or the other it is able to send your face to Google. It will then be able to recognize you everywhere in the world and that's what I dislike :-(

[Tony Cooper]

On Sat, 17 Aug 2013 11:22:35 -0700 (PDT), guilbert...@gmail.com
wrote:

Thank you for telling us that you've settled on a program that you
feel will work for you. That eliminates the need to provide any
further information on other ways to do it.

I've never been interested in face recognition software, so I've never
looked into to it. Also, Picasa has no interest to me since I have a
system already that works for me.

I suppose I could do my own research, but since I'm not interested in
doing it, all I'm interested in is understanding it enough to satisfy
my curiosity.

Does it tag and identify by face? Does the "face" act as a search
term similar to a keyword? In other words, if it identifies an image
of having "John" in it, does Picasa then allow you to search for and
find all images containing "John"?

[nospam]

In article <kuo7v...@news1.newsguy.com>, PeterN

<peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote:

> >> I know someone wh was foolishly using FB for image storage. Someone
> >> hacked the account; used it in violation of policy; the account was
> >> closed, and all images were lost.
> >
> > what does that have to do with anything?
>
> Just an example of why I don't rely on cloud storage.

if your backups are sitting next to your computer, your data is at
risk. if the house burns down or some other disaster, all of it will be
gone.

there should be one or more offsite copies of the data. they could be a
cloud service, a remote connection to a friend's house in some distant
location or a drive in a bank vault.

[nospam]

In article <kuo8b...@news1.newsguy.com>, PeterN

<peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote:

> >>>> I forgot to mention that most of the image organizers store the metadata
> >>>> in a separate database file which can easily be corrupted or unlinked
> >>>> from your pictures' directory structure.
> >>>
> >>> anything can get corrupted. that's why you make backups. also, the
> >>> database file won't become unlinked in normal use. you have to work at
> >>> it for that to happen.
> >>
> >> Agreed. I had tried an early version of LR, I don't remember if it was 2
> >> or 3. I didn't like it. Evan after I uninstalled the program vestiges
> >> kept coming up. I finally did a manual registry clean and physical
> >> deletion of folders.
> >
> > what does that have to do with database corruption?
>
> You brought up the issue. Iagree with you. You attack. Wow!

you brought up uninstalling lightroom and registry cleaning. what does
that have to do with database corruption? nothing whatsoever. why did
you even mention it?

> >> LR is a good program, but just doesn't seem to help my workflow.
> >
> > that's fine, but i don't think you've given it a fair shake.
>
> And the basis for your conclusion is?

what you've posted.

lightroom might be a little different than your current workflow but it
offers a *lot* of advantages. if you immediately dismiss it, then you
won't ever see the advantages.

[nospam]

In article <1f8v095rm42pbl8mg...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper

<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> This is typical of nospam. Instead of making any effort to help the
> questioner by posting a direct reply, this self-appointed expert in
> Lightroom replies to those actually providing information to the
> questioner with some petty comments.

wrong. i always give advice. you just have this stick up your ass to
argue when someone describes a different way than what *you* do. this
may come to you as a surprise but your way is not the only way, nor is
mine.

> nospam has outdone himself in ridiculous comments in order to argue.
> Discouraging pre-planning before embarking on a huge project is about
> as silly a thing as he has every come up with.

i didn't discourage anything. i said it's not required, and it's not.

you don't understand what lightroom can do and how it works (and owning
it doesn't make you an expert).

> The questioner has stated that he has 32,000 images in a Windows-based
> folder/file system. He's stated that location, date, and
> identification of the people in the photographs are important to him
> and that he is looking for a better way to manage his inventory of
> photos.

that better way is lightroom or aperture. since he has windows,
aperture is not an option, despite it being the better choice since it
does facial recognition.

> Pre-planning, which is just mental consideration of the task and what
> he wants to accomplish, is essential.

thinking about it is fine. rearranging files prior to importing to
lightroom is not only not essential but a waste of time.

drop the batch into lightroom and *then* do the organizing. let
lightroom worry about the details.

> Keyword planning, for example. Any aspect of a photo can be a
> keyword, but the objective of searching by keyword is to locate those
> aspects that the user is going to want to find. For example, if the
> locations are all over the country, the user may want to use
> "California" as a keyword and "San Francisco" as a keyword under
> "California". Rather than have keywords for every California city
> where a photo was taken, it may suffice to pull out just certain
> cities separately, but have "California" pull all California cities.

photos can have as many keywords as the user wants and location is
better done with geotagging.

> Names of subjects in the photos is another area where pre-planning can
> help. Do you really need a keyword for every individual?

that's why facial recognition is so useful, but since lightroom doesn't
have facial recognition, a keyword would work, or put the names in one
of the other fields just for that purpose.

> In a typical family Catalog, it may suffice to keyword all photos with
> a keyword that designates the immediate family only...father, mother,
> children. There may or may not be a reason to keyword each. Other
> keywords may designate all of the wife's relatives, all of the
> husband's relatives, and all non-related close friends. Whether or
> not individuals in each group need be keyworded separately is a choice
> to be considered, and that can be added later putting in a keyword
> under the primary keyword.
>
> A little planning in advance will simplify bringing in those 32,000
> images with a basic keyword list structure. Further breakdowns can be
> added later.

very little planning is needed. the organization should be done in
lightroom, not outside of it. also, it can be changed at any time for
any reason.

> Pre-planning the whole import process, with 32,000 images, should be
> thought out in advance. Does the user want to import all 32,000 at
> once, or folder by folder?

that's about the only decision that needs to be made and only the
person himself can decide that. there are advantages and disadvantages
to either way.

> Pre-planning the original folder/file structure should be considered.
> Files can be re-named or moved in LR, but it's going to an overall
> simpler process to make sure the folder/file structure is workable in
> the first place.

wrong. the original folder/file structure does not matter *at all*.

lightroom doesn't care if they're in one giant folder (although windows
might) or if every folder has only one photo. it's irrelevant.
lightroom tracks it *for* you.

> On other points nospam made:
>
> It is not trivial to change keywords in LR. It is simple to change
> *a* keyword, or *a group* of keywords, but it is not simple to change
> 100s of images if the initial keyword structure is to be changed.
> Doing it right in the first place is the simple way.

it's trivial to change keywords at any time. i've done it. you
obviously haven't.

> It is far from trivial to locate images if the folder/file system is
> changed after those photos have been imported. LR tells you where the
> file was, but not where it is if the folder/file structure has been
> changed outside of LR. The user has to navigate to the image and tell
> LR "This is it". That's not "a couple of clicks". The clicks are
> done *after* what can be a time-consuming search. The user can only
> point LR to the image after you find it. LR won't help the user find
> it.

it's trivial to locate images if they've moved. i've done that too. you
obviously haven't.

photos don't move on their own. if they have moved, then the user moved
them, which means they know where they are so there's no need for a
'time consuming search'. even if someone had to do a search, it's
hardly time consuming. computers are very fast and can scan hundreds of
thousands of files in a few seconds.

> That folder/file system should not be changed in any way outside of
> LR. All changes should be made in LR.

no changes to the file system are needed. let lightroom manage it. this
is the concept you clearly don't understand that fueled that other
thread. however, in the unlikely event a change is needed, do it
within lightroom. very simple.

also, in the event they are changed outside of lightroom and lightroom
can't figure it out (which it can sometimes, computers are smart that
way), then the user can update it manually. it's not a big deal. i've
done that too. you obviously haven't.

> nospam uses "irrelevant" to mean "It's not important to nospam". It's
> all about him.

wrong. it has nothing to do with me.

you, on the other hand, force your ways down everyone's throat. if
someone describes a different way, you have to argue about it. you just
can't accept that there is more than one way to do something.

> Some of us *do* see a need to re-name files.

there is never a need to rename files when using an asset management
app. period.

the user can retrieve assets by content, date, keywords, etc., within
the app, and if they need to send the actual file to somewhere (email,
upload to flickr, etc.), rename it *then* on export. it can also be
resized, watermarked, metadata stripped if desired, etc. the asset
management app does it *for* you.

> Photos
> are downloaded and numbered in the sequence in which they were shot.
> Personally, I like to rearrange that sequence sometimes to put shots
> together so they appear in sequence by subject.

do that *in* lightroom, and as i've said before, one photo can be in
more than one group.

with your system, that photo would need multiple names to be part of
multiple groups. not possible.

> I may change
> 2013-08-17-86 to 2013-08-17-22B so it appears next to another shot of
> the same subject. LR displays my images in a ascending order by file
> number. As long as this is done in LR, not in the folder/file
> structure, this is no problem. LR changes that file in the
> folder/file structure to this new number.

wrong. lightroom can display it any way you want *without* renaming
anything. you obviously don't know how to use lightroom.

> I don't re-sequence images all the time, but I might in a large group
> of images where I want to select only a few representative images for
> another use like printing or putting them in a SmugMug or Dropbox
> gallery. I can use rating tags to pull those images together, but I
> prefer to group them so I can see all six of (x) next to each other in
> the Library pane and choose which one I want to extract.

lightroom can do that automatically. set up a smart collection with
high ratings or whatever you want. make a non-smart collection if you
prefer.

> While this might not be what others do, I do things the way they are
> most convenient for me, and LR allows me to do that.

what is convenient for you is not necessarily convenient for others,
and in fact, many times it's convoluted and far more work than
necessary.

the point is that lightroom does so much more and you assume it must
only be done your way.

> There is never a disadvantage to pre-planning a large project. To do
> it later, as nospam suggests, can result in disaster or total
> confusion. Excessive time and effort can be expended correcting
> things. Not necessarily correcting errors, but correcting a system
> that was poorly planned.

you're assuming disaster will always occur. that is a bad assumption.

> One would hope that someday nospam would start responding directly to
> people who ask for help and provide workable suggestions to them
> instead of waiting for others to try to help and then making
> argumentitive comments. And, start making concrete suggestions
> instead of meaningless platitudes likes "It's trivial" or "Let the
> computer do the work for you".

one would hope that you stop twisting what i say so that you can argue
that your way is the one true way.

[J. Clarke]

In article <e9f9ec08-777a-49fa...@googlegroups.com>,
guilbert...@gmail.com says...

>
> On Saturday, August 17, 2013 5:30:32 PM UTC+2, J. Clarke wrote:
>
> > Why do you need it to be supported by Apple?
>
> I do not want to run a hacked OSX image running in a VM (VMWare, VirtualBox, etc ...) over Windows like those you can find on Internet.

Who said anything about hacked?

> If Apple provides an official solution for running MacOS on a Windows computer, I will use this one.

They won't even though on many machines all that's necessary is to
insert the Apple DVD and power up.

[Savageduck]

Lightroom has simplified my cataloging and arranging.
All of my imports into LR are filed by capture date. I apply some
general keyword(s) (location, event, trip, project) at import and more
specific ones later. It is easy to rate the individual images
Once that is done I can, and do rename the folders(with the date
included) for easier identification. Then it is a simple matter to
create "Quick collections", "Smart collections" (based on whatever
criteria you establish), or plain old "Collections".

...and Lightroom runs a regular backup protocol. Also on import, it can
write duplicates to a second or third drive for backup purposes.

Integration with Photoshop is simple, access to the plugins I use is
seamless, I find the two go hand in glove.

...and I know LR doesn't have the face recognition the OP desires, and
he has settled on Picasa for now, but I suspect that Picasa might choke
on the quantity of files he intends to feed it.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Tony Cooper]

On Sat, 17 Aug 2013 16:40:20 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>> Pre-planning, which is just mental consideration of the task and what
>> he wants to accomplish, is essential.
>
>thinking about it is fine. rearranging files prior to importing to
>lightroom is not only not essential but a waste of time.

I didn't say rearranging files is essential. I said pre-planning is
essential. Rearranging files may be advantageous or may not be.
Pre-planning will help determine that.

>> Pre-planning the original folder/file structure should be considered.
>> Files can be re-named or moved in LR, but it's going to an overall
>> simpler process to make sure the folder/file structure is workable in
>> the first place.
>
>wrong. the original folder/file structure does not matter *at all*.

Actually, it could. When images are imported into LR, they will point
back to the folder/file where they were on import. Most people
wouldn't have to move anything prior to import, but the suggestion was
made to someone who has accumulated 32,000 images with what I consider
to be a rather cumbersome folder/file naming system. His folders
could be scattered around and not even named in the same style. He
might find it better to move them all under one folder now.
>
It's a moot point now, though, since he's not going to use LR.

>lightroom doesn't care if they're in one giant folder (although windows
>might) or if every folder has only one photo. it's irrelevant.
>lightroom tracks it *for* you.
>
> On other points nospam made:
>>
>> It is not trivial to change keywords in LR. It is simple to change
>> *a* keyword, or *a group* of keywords, but it is not simple to change
>> 100s of images if the initial keyword structure is to be changed.
>> Doing it right in the first place is the simple way.
>
>it's trivial to change keywords at any time. i've done it. you
>obviously haven't.

You'd be very wrong.

>
>> It is far from trivial to locate images if the folder/file system is
>> changed after those photos have been imported. LR tells you where the
>> file was, but not where it is if the folder/file structure has been
>> changed outside of LR. The user has to navigate to the image and tell
>> LR "This is it". That's not "a couple of clicks". The clicks are
>> done *after* what can be a time-consuming search. The user can only
>> point LR to the image after you find it. LR won't help the user find
>> it.
>
>it's trivial to locate images if they've moved. i've done that too. you
>obviously haven't.

You'd be very wrong.

>photos don't move on their own. if they have moved, then the user moved
>them, which means they know where they are

You'd be very wrong. It depends entirely on what moves are made and
when.

> so there's no need for a
>'time consuming search'. even if someone had to do a search, it's
>hardly time consuming. computers are very fast and can scan hundreds of
>thousands of files in a few seconds.

>> nospam uses "irrelevant" to mean "It's not important to nospam". It's
>> all about him.
>
>wrong. it has nothing to do with me.
>
>you, on the other hand, force your ways down everyone's throat.

Force? A suggestion to pre-plan is "force"?

>if
>someone describes a different way, you have to argue about it. you just
>can't accept that there is more than one way to do something.

You haven't suggested squat. That's the problem. All you've said is
"let LR do it for you".

>> Some of us *do* see a need to re-name files.
>
>there is never a need to rename files when using an asset management
>app. period.
>
>the user can retrieve assets by content, date, keywords, etc., within
>the app, and if they need to send the actual file to somewhere (email,
>upload to flickr, etc.), rename it *then* on export. it can also be
>resized, watermarked, metadata stripped if desired, etc. the asset
>management app does it *for* you.
>
>> Photos
>> are downloaded and numbered in the sequence in which they were shot.
>> Personally, I like to rearrange that sequence sometimes to put shots
>> together so they appear in sequence by subject.
>
>do that *in* lightroom, and as i've said before, one photo can be in
>more than one group.
>
>with your system, that photo would need multiple names to be part of
>multiple groups.

Why? The only change is to re-number the photo to place it in a
different sequence position in Library than it would be if numbered in
the sequence position of when it was shot.

What "groups" are you blathering about?

>not possible.

Never contemplated.

>
>> I may change
>> 2013-08-17-86 to 2013-08-17-22B so it appears next to another shot of
>> the same subject. LR displays my images in a ascending order by file
>> number. As long as this is done in LR, not in the folder/file
>> structure, this is no problem. LR changes that file in the
>> folder/file structure to this new number.
>
>wrong. lightroom can display it any way you want *without* renaming
>anything. you obviously don't know how to use lightroom.

In Library view, images are displayed in View>Sort>(whatever is set).
There is no option for "Put all the images of (x) in sequence".

You can do that with keywords, and extract just (x), but if there are
several things you want to do this with, you're dicking around adding
keywords for a minor task. You can do it with rating tags, but you'd
need to delete those the next time you have a rating project. The
re-numbering method places them in the desired sequence and they will
remain that way. It's a simple thing to re-number, and much more
efficient than the other ways.

Let's face it. It's a technique that works and you are only against
it because I suggested it.

You haven't suggested a better way. Typical of you to say something
is not the right way, but not to add what *is* the right way. Net
contribution from you: 0.

[nospam]

In article <39ov0998vjsbk4rl6...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper

<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> Pre-planning, which is just mental consideration of the task and what
> >> he wants to accomplish, is essential.
> >
> >thinking about it is fine. rearranging files prior to importing to
> >lightroom is not only not essential but a waste of time.
>
> I didn't say rearranging files is essential. I said pre-planning is
> essential. Rearranging files may be advantageous or may not be.
> Pre-planning will help determine that.

it might be useful but it's hardly essential and rearranging files is a
complete waste of time. lightroom handles the file system, not the
user.

> >> Pre-planning the original folder/file structure should be considered.
> >> Files can be re-named or moved in LR, but it's going to an overall
> >> simpler process to make sure the folder/file structure is workable in
> >> the first place.
> >
> >wrong. the original folder/file structure does not matter *at all*.
>
> Actually, it could.

it never does. lightroom doesn't care how something is organized on
disk. it tracks the files *for* you.

> When images are imported into LR, they will point
> back to the folder/file where they were on import. Most people
> wouldn't have to move anything prior to import, but the suggestion was
> made to someone who has accumulated 32,000 images with what I consider
> to be a rather cumbersome folder/file naming system. His folders
> could be scattered around and not even named in the same style. He
> might find it better to move them all under one folder now.

lightroom is non-judgemental. it doesn't care if everything is
organized or it's a complete mess. it's not going to insult the user
because the photos are poorly organized.

> It's a moot point now, though, since he's not going to use LR.

true, but he might at some point in the future, and others might be
considering lightroom.

> >lightroom doesn't care if they're in one giant folder (although windows
> >might) or if every folder has only one photo. it's irrelevant.
> >lightroom tracks it *for* you.
> >
> > On other points nospam made:
> >>
> >> It is not trivial to change keywords in LR. It is simple to change
> >> *a* keyword, or *a group* of keywords, but it is not simple to change
> >> 100s of images if the initial keyword structure is to be changed.
> >> Doing it right in the first place is the simple way.
> >
> >it's trivial to change keywords at any time. i've done it. you
> >obviously haven't.
>
> You'd be very wrong.

not wrong at all. i've done it.

just because you don't know how doesn't mean other people can't.

> >> It is far from trivial to locate images if the folder/file system is
> >> changed after those photos have been imported. LR tells you where the
> >> file was, but not where it is if the folder/file structure has been
> >> changed outside of LR. The user has to navigate to the image and tell
> >> LR "This is it". That's not "a couple of clicks". The clicks are
> >> done *after* what can be a time-consuming search. The user can only
> >> point LR to the image after you find it. LR won't help the user find
> >> it.
> >
> >it's trivial to locate images if they've moved. i've done that too. you
> >obviously haven't.
>
> You'd be very wrong.

not wrong at all as well.

> >photos don't move on their own. if they have moved, then the user moved
> >them, which means they know where they are
>
> You'd be very wrong.

really? photos move on their own? no wonder you have problems. your
computer is haunted.

> It depends entirely on what moves are made and
> when.

obviously, and i said as much.

in some cases lightroom can figure it out and in other cases the user
has to help it. it's nowhere near as bad as you make it out to be. if
photos moved, it's a user-instigated action and they know where they
are.

also not mentioned is that lightroom can manage content that's not
online, such as on a server.

> > so there's no need for a
> >'time consuming search'. even if someone had to do a search, it's
> >hardly time consuming. computers are very fast and can scan hundreds of
> >thousands of files in a few seconds.
>
> >> nospam uses "irrelevant" to mean "It's not important to nospam". It's
> >> all about him.
> >
> >wrong. it has nothing to do with me.
> >
> >you, on the other hand, force your ways down everyone's throat.
>
> Force? A suggestion to pre-plan is "force"?

when you chastise someone for suggesting another way to do things, it's
force.

you don't want him doing it in any other way than *your* way.

> >if someone describes a different way, you have to argue about it. you just
> >can't accept that there is more than one way to do something.
>
> You haven't suggested squat. That's the problem. All you've said is
> "let LR do it for you".

i have suggested quite a bit. you have a reading comprehension problem.

and lightroom does do a lot, so the user doesn't have to. this is a
good thing.

you advocate doing it manually, which is not only dumb, but bizarre.

> >> Some of us *do* see a need to re-name files.
> >
> >there is never a need to rename files when using an asset management
> >app. period.
> >
> >the user can retrieve assets by content, date, keywords, etc., within
> >the app, and if they need to send the actual file to somewhere (email,
> >upload to flickr, etc.), rename it *then* on export. it can also be
> >resized, watermarked, metadata stripped if desired, etc. the asset
> >management app does it *for* you.
> >
> >> Photos
> >> are downloaded and numbered in the sequence in which they were shot.
> >> Personally, I like to rearrange that sequence sometimes to put shots
> >> together so they appear in sequence by subject.
> >
> >do that *in* lightroom, and as i've said before, one photo can be in
> >more than one group.
> >
> >with your system, that photo would need multiple names to be part of
> >multiple groups.
>
> Why? The only change is to re-number the photo to place it in a
> different sequence position in Library than it would be if numbered in
> the sequence position of when it was shot.

it's not needed.

> What "groups" are you blathering about?

the ones in lightroom.

maybe if you understood how to use the app you wouldn't be talking out
your ass.

> >not possible.
>
> Never contemplated.

of course not, because you're stuck with the limitations of a file
system and can't see beyond that.

> >> I may change
> >> 2013-08-17-86 to 2013-08-17-22B so it appears next to another shot of
> >> the same subject. LR displays my images in a ascending order by file
> >> number. As long as this is done in LR, not in the folder/file
> >> structure, this is no problem. LR changes that file in the
> >> folder/file structure to this new number.
> >
> >wrong. lightroom can display it any way you want *without* renaming
> >anything. you obviously don't know how to use lightroom.
>
> In Library view, images are displayed in View>Sort>(whatever is set).
> There is no option for "Put all the images of (x) in sequence".

more evidence you don't know how to use lightroom. library isn't the
only way to browse photos.

> You can do that with keywords, and extract just (x), but if there are
> several things you want to do this with, you're dicking around adding
> keywords for a minor task. You can do it with rating tags, but you'd
> need to delete those the next time you have a rating project. The
> re-numbering method places them in the desired sequence and they will
> remain that way. It's a simple thing to re-number, and much more
> efficient than the other ways.

it's one of the least efficient ways possible.

> Let's face it. It's a technique that works and you are only against
> it because I suggested it.

that's a nice bit of projection.

you are arguing because i suggested something. if someone else said the
same thing you wouldn't have bother to reply. you argue over anything i
say, even when you agree with it.

> You haven't suggested a better way. Typical of you to say something
> is not the right way, but not to add what *is* the right way. Net
> contribution from you: 0.

once again, wrong.

[Tony Cooper]

All my photos in LR are also filed by capture date and the file names
represent that: 2013-08-17-01, for example. Any other aspect to be
retrieved is done by keyword.

The only thing that is different about my system is that images are
downloaded to C: drive under one folder for the year in which they
were shot and then imported in LR.

I do it that way because no one else in my family even knows what LR
is, let alone how to use it or what the desktop icon means. They do
know how to use a folder/file system to find and view or print images.
If I'm not around, I've left them a system they can work with.

No one has evidenced any interest in learning about it.

[nospam]

In article <3pqv09544n8t95i6g...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper

<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >Lightroom has simplified my cataloging and arranging.
> >All of my imports into LR are filed by capture date. I apply some
> >general keyword(s) (location, event, trip, project) at import and more
> >specific ones later. It is easy to rate the individual images
> >Once that is done I can, and do rename the folders(with the date
> >included) for easier identification. Then it is a simple matter to
> >create "Quick collections", "Smart collections" (based on whatever
> >criteria you establish), or plain old "Collections".
>
> All my photos in LR are also filed by capture date and the file names
> represent that: 2013-08-17-01, for example. Any other aspect to be
> retrieved is done by keyword.

lightroom can sort by capture date no matter what the name is.

> The only thing that is different about my system is that images are
> downloaded to C: drive under one folder for the year in which they
> were shot and then imported in LR.

that's fine. lightroom doesn't care.

> I do it that way because no one else in my family even knows what LR
> is, let alone how to use it or what the desktop icon means. They do
> know how to use a folder/file system to find and view or print images.
> If I'm not around, I've left them a system they can work with.
>
> No one has evidenced any interest in learning about it.

and because of that you lose the advantages of using lightroom. worse
you insist everyone do it your way when they have no such restrictions.

[Savageduck]

I use the Lightroom dated folder label and add my specific event,
location, project when I rename.
< https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_282.jpg >

> The only thing that is different about my system is that images are
> downloaded to C: drive under one folder for the year in which they
> were shot and then imported in LR.

C: drive! who uses a C: drive? I am driving a Mac. ;-)

I have a Lightroom folder on my hard drive which was created when I
installed Lightroom. In that folder are the following:

Backups folder; those are the routine backups of the LR Catalog files.
The Catalog Previews file: "Lightroom 4 Catalog Previews.lrdata"
The Catalog file: "Lightroom 4 Catalog.lrcat"
The Journal file: "Lightroom 4 Catalog.lrcat-journal"
The Lock file: "Lightroom 4 Catalog.lrcat.lock"
...and then there is a folder labelled "Lightroom Import & Adjust" this
contains a folder created by LR for each year of imports. All movement
of images into various "Collections" is done virtually and recorded in
the catalog files.
< https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_283.jpg >

> I do it that way because no one else in my family even knows what LR
> is, let alone how to use it or what the desktop icon means. They do
> know how to use a folder/file system to find and view or print images.
> If I'm not around, I've left them a system they can work with.
>
> No one has evidenced any interest in learning about it.

Are they trying to tell you something?


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[J. Clarke]

In article <39ov0998vjsbk4rl6...@4ax.com>, tonycooper214
@gmail.com says...

>
> On Sat, 17 Aug 2013 16:40:20 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >> Pre-planning, which is just mental consideration of the task and what
> >> he wants to accomplish, is essential.
> >
> >thinking about it is fine. rearranging files prior to importing to
> >lightroom is not only not essential but a waste of time.
>
> I didn't say rearranging files is essential. I said pre-planning is
> essential. Rearranging files may be advantageous or may not be.
> Pre-planning will help determine that.
>
> >> Pre-planning the original folder/file structure should be considered.
> >> Files can be re-named or moved in LR, but it's going to an overall
> >> simpler process to make sure the folder/file structure is workable in
> >> the first place.
> >
> >wrong. the original folder/file structure does not matter *at all*.
>
> Actually, it could. When images are imported into LR, they will point
> back to the folder/file where they were on import.

That's one option. The options on import are Copy as DNG, Copy, Move,
and Add. If you pick "Move" then the image will be moved to a specified
location and then added to the catalog. Either of the Copy options
leaves the original in place, makes a copy in the specified location,
and catalogs the copy.

Note that "Move" is not an option for import from some types of media--
they see this as a "safety feature" but I find it more of an annoyance.

When I first set up Lightroom I had it move or copy files from a bunch
of different locations (they were scattered over three different
machines and multiple drives on each machine) to one single folder on
one drive, so I could easily back them up.

If you do that then Lightroom by default sets up a structure for you
with year as the top level, month as the next level, and day within the
month as the third level. There may be other options available--that
worked for me so I haven't felt any urge to look for them.

[Eric Stevens]

On Fri, 16 Aug 2013 08:07:15 -0700 (PDT), guilbert...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Thursday, August 15, 2013 10:13:58 PM UTC+2, Sandman wrote:
>
>> iPhoto/Aperture does all of this automatically.
>
>I had a look on the web and on your screen shots and these tools seem great but I forgot to tell that I am working under Windows 7 and I found not Windows port.
>
>> Why do you want to change the file name ?
>
>I had 2 disks crashes in 25 years and when you try to recover the files, having the files named properly greatly help.
>
I have two home computers (Windows 7 and XP) which are networked. One
has a large external hard disk.

All of the files other than application files (i.e. photographs,
accounts, job files etc) are backed up to the scheme:

Computer A is backed up to computer B
Computer B is backed up to computer A
Computers A and B are backed up to external hard disk C

Short of a fire (or a burglar), there is nothing that can deprive me
of either computer's contents.

The task of backing up is attended to by 'Second Copy' which does it's
thing at several various specified times each day.
http://www.secondcopy.com/index.html
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[PeterN]

I understand th importance of off site backup. If my house burns down, I
will have so many other problems, that the loss of my images would be of
little concern.

--
PeterN

[PeterN]

On 8/17/2013 4:40 PM, nospam wrote:

You failed to notice that I gave LR a fair trial. That's why I
uninstalled it. That's why to this day my images are all in s sub-folder
of "my lightroom."

--
PeterN

[Eric Stevens]

On Sat, 17 Aug 2013 17:55:48 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

--- snip ---

>> I do it that way because no one else in my family even knows what LR
>> is, let alone how to use it or what the desktop icon means. They do
>> know how to use a folder/file system to find and view or print images.
>> If I'm not around, I've left them a system they can work with.
>>
>> No one has evidenced any interest in learning about it.
>
>and because of that you lose the advantages of using lightroom. worse
>you insist everyone do it your way when they have no such restrictions.

I don't think you are correct. I've never seen Tony do more than
describe how he does things and resist you pressure to make him use
LR. That's not insisting everyone does it his way.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[PeterN]

But he uses LR. Just not in the way you recommend.

--
PeterN

[Tony Cooper]

nospam could take a lesson from you. Instead of just arguing a point,
you've made a point and explained it in detail. That's the way it
should be done.

[Tony Cooper]

Exactly so. I am quite willing to share how I do it, and quite
willing to defend that I do what I do because I find it is convenient
to me, but I don't even suggest that anyone do it the way I do it.

What I do works, no matter what nospam says. If it works for me, it
could work for others, but it's entirely up to them to adopt or reject
what I say.

To say it's wrong, and leave it at that, is a disservice to anyone who
wants to learn. J. Clarke has just shown the way to do it right: tell
'em there's another way, and then explain the other way.

[nospam]

In article <rp2019humbu3a3bfs...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens

<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> >> I do it that way because no one else in my family even knows what LR
> >> is, let alone how to use it or what the desktop icon means. They do
> >> know how to use a folder/file system to find and view or print images.
> >> If I'm not around, I've left them a system they can work with.
> >>
> >> No one has evidenced any interest in learning about it.
> >
> >and because of that you lose the advantages of using lightroom. worse
> >you insist everyone do it your way when they have no such restrictions.
>
> I don't think you are correct. I've never seen Tony do more than
> describe how he does things and resist you pressure to make him use
> LR. That's not insisting everyone does it his way.

he argues when my way differs from his. he also argues when it's the
same. he likes to argue.

[nospam]

In article <lf3019dsu3vdpiuj2...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper

<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Exactly so. I am quite willing to share how I do it, and quite
> willing to defend that I do what I do because I find it is convenient
> to me, but I don't even suggest that anyone do it the way I do it.

defending your way means you are insisting yours is the one true way.

your way one way of many. i offer *other* ways, ones which are much
more efficient.

i also defend my way when attacked by people who don't understand it
and like to argue for no particular reason.

> What I do works, no matter what nospam says. If it works for me, it
> could work for others, but it's entirely up to them to adopt or reject
> what I say.

i didn't say it didn't work. i said it's more work than necessary, and
it is.

if someone wants to make more work for themselves, go for it.

meanwhile, most people get computers to make their lives easier, not
the other way around.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sat, 17 Aug 2013 21:23:26 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <lf3019dsu3vdpiuj2...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
><tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Exactly so. I am quite willing to share how I do it, and quite
>> willing to defend that I do what I do because I find it is convenient
>> to me, but I don't even suggest that anyone do it the way I do it.
>
>defending your way means you are insisting yours is the one true way.

What are you, Swedish? Since when is defending your own way of doing
something "insisting" that others do it that way? You have your own
definition of "insisting"?

If that's the case, then you are equally insistent that your way is
the one true way. Of course, we don't know what your way is because
all you do is argue about the way that others do it.

[nospam]

In article <d9e019p1i5fm5mqd1...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper

<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> Exactly so. I am quite willing to share how I do it, and quite
> >> willing to defend that I do what I do because I find it is convenient
> >> to me, but I don't even suggest that anyone do it the way I do it.
> >
> >defending your way means you are insisting yours is the one true way.
>
> What are you, Swedish? Since when is defending your own way of doing
> something "insisting" that others do it that way? You have your own
> definition of "insisting"?

why else would you defend it? others have other ways of doing things
and if they choose another way, why would you even care?

> If that's the case, then you are equally insistent that your way is
> the one true way. Of course, we don't know what your way is because
> all you do is argue about the way that others do it.

i defend against your attacks, not the methods themselves. i don't care
what people do, only that they have all of the information available so
they can make an informed decision. you try to squelch that
information.

[Eric Stevens]

On Sat, 17 Aug 2013 23:31:33 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <d9e019p1i5fm5mqd1...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
><tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> Exactly so. I am quite willing to share how I do it, and quite
>> >> willing to defend that I do what I do because I find it is convenient
>> >> to me, but I don't even suggest that anyone do it the way I do it.
>> >
>> >defending your way means you are insisting yours is the one true way.
>>
>> What are you, Swedish? Since when is defending your own way of doing
>> something "insisting" that others do it that way? You have your own
>> definition of "insisting"?
>
>why else would you defend it?

What a weird question!

>others have other ways of doing things
>and if they choose another way, why would you even care?

Why shouldn't he when the subject comes up for discussion?

In fact he doesn't care. He states his own preference and leaves it at
that. It is you that seems to care sufficiently to advocate that he
does things in your preferred way.

>
>> If that's the case, then you are equally insistent that your way is
>> the one true way. Of course, we don't know what your way is because
>> all you do is argue about the way that others do it.
>
>i defend against your attacks, not the methods themselves. i don't care
>what people do, only that they have all of the information available so
>they can make an informed decision. you try to squelch that
>information.

??????
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Tony Cooper]

On Sat, 17 Aug 2013 23:31:33 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <d9e019p1i5fm5mqd1...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
><tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> Exactly so. I am quite willing to share how I do it, and quite
>> >> willing to defend that I do what I do because I find it is convenient
>> >> to me, but I don't even suggest that anyone do it the way I do it.
>> >
>> >defending your way means you are insisting yours is the one true way.
>>
>> What are you, Swedish? Since when is defending your own way of doing
>> something "insisting" that others do it that way? You have your own
>> definition of "insisting"?
>
>why else would you defend it?

Only because you're always saying I'm doing it wrong.

> others have other ways of doing things
>and if they choose another way, why would you even care?

Generally, I don't. What usually happens is that someone asks a
question, I reply with a solution that works for me, you reply to me
(never to the person who's asking for help) and say I'm doing it
wrong, and I defend what I'm doing because it works.

>> If that's the case, then you are equally insistent that your way is
>> the one true way. Of course, we don't know what your way is because
>> all you do is argue about the way that others do it.
>
>i defend against your attacks, not the methods themselves.

Bullshit. You initiate them. Just as you have in this thread. I
posted some suggestions, and you started attacking the suggestions.
You weren't defending anything. You didn't offer anything. Nada.

You are correct that you don't usually offer methods. You rarely
attempt to offer a solution unless it's to flog an Apple product.

>i don't care what people do,

Bullshit.

>only that they have all of the information available so
>they can make an informed decision. you try to squelch that
>information.

But you don't provide information. You just provide an argument to
what others provide. You're a parasite that infects the host.

[nospam]

In article <0al019908lsp5pua3...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens

<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> In fact he doesn't care. He states his own preference and leaves it at
> that. It is you that seems to care sufficiently to advocate that he
> does things in your preferred way.

i don't advocate anyone do anything in any particular way.

all i said was his way is more work for the user, and it is.

these apps are designed to do stuff for the user so they don't have to
anymore, so why not take advantage of that?

[nospam]

In article <epl01956t5npdjbvi...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper

<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Only because you're always saying I'm doing it wrong.

no, what i say is you're making more work for yourself, and you are.

> > others have other ways of doing things
> >and if they choose another way, why would you even care?
>
> Generally, I don't. What usually happens is that someone asks a
> question, I reply with a solution that works for me, you reply to me
> (never to the person who's asking for help) and say I'm doing it
> wrong, and I defend what I'm doing because it works.

many times i do reply to the person asking. it's just that your way is
one of the more convoluted ways to do stuff and it's important that
people see alternate methods and aren't misled by someone who doesn't
know how to use the apps properly.

> >> If that's the case, then you are equally insistent that your way is
> >> the one true way. Of course, we don't know what your way is because
> >> all you do is argue about the way that others do it.
> >
> >i defend against your attacks, not the methods themselves.
>
> Bullshit. You initiate them. Just as you have in this thread. I
> posted some suggestions, and you started attacking the suggestions.
> You weren't defending anything. You didn't offer anything. Nada.

i offer ways of doing things that are *less* work for the user.

> You are correct that you don't usually offer methods. You rarely
> attempt to offer a solution unless it's to flog an Apple product.

bullshit. you are lying again.

[Sandman]

In article <kuo8b...@news1.newsguy.com>,
PeterN <peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote:

> >>>> I forgot to mention that most of the image organizers store the metadata
> >>>> in a separate database file which can easily be corrupted or unlinked
> >>>> from
> >>>> your pictures' directory structure.
> >>>
> >>> anything can get corrupted. that's why you make backups. also, the
> >>> database file won't become unlinked in normal use. you have to work at
> >>> it for that to happen.
> >>
> >> Agreed. I had tried an early version of LR, I don't remember if it was 2
> >> or 3. I didn't like it. Evan after I uninstalled the program vestiges
> >> kept coming up. I finally did a manual registry clean and physical
> >> deletion of folders.
> >
> > what does that have to do with database corruption?
>
> You brought up the issue. Iagree with you. You attack. Wow!

Attack? Peter, seriously - where is the attack?

Paranoia?


--
Sandman[.net]

[guilbert...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, August 18, 2013 1:42:37 AM UTC+2, Eric Stevens wrote:

> Short of a fire (or a burglar), there is nothing that can deprive me of either computer's contents.

I am backing up externally to Backblaze.
Backblaze installs an agent which backups changes once they happen.
Even if you lose your hard disk, you can still get your data recovered (except of course, if there is a fire or earthquake in the Backblaze datacenter at the same time ;-)).

[guilbert...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, August 17, 2013 12:21:16 PM UTC+2, Sandman wrote:

> Oh, well. Then my best advice is; Get a Mac, fast. You buy a nice Mac laptop and a Time Machine

You are talking like all my friends who have a Mac ;-)
I know the Apple builds wonderful computers but I am a geek and I like upgrading the hardware in my computer or upgrade it myself.
That's not possible with Mac computers.

[Sandman]

In article <70efe0e1-0dce-4a68...@googlegroups.com>,

I just installed new fast SSD disks in my Macbook Air, iMac 27" and my
Mac mini. Being a "geek" myself, it was a piece of cake. The iMac is the
trickiest since you have to remove the entire LCD screen, but with the
right tools the entire process took about 20 minutes.

Upgrading graphics cards might be trickier, of course. But then again,
unless you're an avid PC gamer, you probably wouldn't do that very much
anyway. And if you're an avid PC gamer, your future looks bleak as it is
already - what with consoles killing it slowly :)





--
Sandman[.net]

[nospam]

In article <70efe0e1-0dce-4a68...@googlegroups.com>,
<guilbert...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I know the Apple builds wonderful computers but I am a geek and I like
> upgrading the hardware in my computer or upgrade it myself.
> That's not possible with Mac computers.

nonsense. add/remove hard drives or ssd, add/remove memory, add/remove
pci cards in a mac pro.

and what matters is getting work done not opening the box.

[Eric Stevens]

On Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:33:19 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

Why are you ignoring his statement that "I am a geek and I like
upgrading the hardware in my computer"?

That is an end in itself.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

On Sun, 18 Aug 2013 02:24:34 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <0al019908lsp5pua3...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
><eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> In fact he doesn't care. He states his own preference and leaves it at
>> that. It is you that seems to care sufficiently to advocate that he
>> does things in your preferred way.
>
>i don't advocate anyone do anything in any particular way.

Do you really believe that? :-)

>
>all i said was his way is more work for the user, and it is.
>
>these apps are designed to do stuff for the user so they don't have to
>anymore, so why not take advantage of that?

There can be lots of personal reasons.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[nospam]

In article <rs5119lkqhruupldp...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens

<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> >> I know the Apple builds wonderful computers but I am a geek and I like
> >> upgrading the hardware in my computer or upgrade it myself.
> >> That's not possible with Mac computers.
> >
> >nonsense. add/remove hard drives or ssd, add/remove memory, add/remove
> >pci cards in a mac pro.
> >
> >and what matters is getting work done not opening the box.
>
> Why are you ignoring his statement that "I am a geek and I like
> upgrading the hardware in my computer"?
>
> That is an end in itself.

it can be, but not if one wants to get work done.

[nospam]

In article <2261195cmcu4tf5pj...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens

<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> >all i said was his way is more work for the user, and it is.
> >
> >these apps are designed to do stuff for the user so they don't have to
> >anymore, so why not take advantage of that?
>
> There can be lots of personal reasons.

such as what?

[guilbert...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, August 17, 2013 9:44:22 PM UTC 2, Tony Cooper wrote:

> Does it tag and identify by face? Does the "face" act as a search term similar to a keyword? In other words, if it identifies an image of having "John" in it, does Picasa then allow you to search for and find all images containing "John"?

First of all, I am very new to Picasa 3.9 therefore I can make some mistakes.

Here is my experience as a beginner:

I installed Picasa yesterday. I gave it my photo directory. It took it about 12 hours to process (various processes including faces extractions) my 32000 pictures.

At the end of the process, you have to learn to Picasa who's who.
Picasa first groups the faces by similarities. So when you identify a face into a group, the whole group is associated to this same identity.
If the similarity is less than a percentage, it asks you to confirm the identity => fortunately, Picasa was quite always right.
Picasa identified more than 1000 different and unknown faces. I then identified the 50 faces I knew from this list.

I had about 1200 faces to confirm/learn to Picasa and it took me about 6 hours.
Given the amount of files, I think the software did a very good job.
Moreover, it is nothing compared to the time required for naming 32000 files.

To answer to your questions: yes Picasa allows to perform requests including one or more identities and other search criterias (don't forget it's Google ;-)).

Even if not connected with my Google account, I noticed that Picasa had a permanent connection to internet ports 80 (http) and 443 (https) so it is able to transmit your personal information to the Google servers.

[guilbert...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, August 17, 2013 10:46:29 PM UTC+2, J. Clarke wrote:

> They won't even though on many machines all that's necessary is to insert the Apple DVD and power up.

Do you mean that if I insert the Apple DVD in my homebuilt PC then OSX will install fine on my computer ?

I did not know it was now possible to install OSX to a different computer than Apple.

[Ghost-Rider]

Le 18/08/2013 14:11, guilbert...@gmail.com a écrit :

> First of all, I am very new to Picasa 3.9 therefore I can make some mistakes.
> Here is my experience as a beginner:
> I installed Picasa yesterday. I gave it my photo directory. It took it about 12 hours to process (various processes including faces extractions) my 32000 pictures.

Yes, the first recognition process is long. After that, it is instantaneous.

>
> At the end of the process, you have to learn to Picasa who's who.
> Picasa first groups the faces by similarities. So when you identify a face into a group, the whole group is associated to this same identity.
> If the similarity is less than a percentage, it asks you to confirm the identity => fortunately, Picasa was quite always right.

Yes, and it is surprising sometimes how Picasa recognizes people
apparently so different as being the same.

> Picasa identified more than 1000 different and unknown faces. I then identified the 50 faces I knew from this list.

So you gave an identity to those faces and later on, Picasa will
associate new faces to that identity, asking confirmation only when in
doubt but you can always reject an automatic naming later on.

>
> I had about 1200 faces to confirm/learn to Picasa and it took me about 6 hours.

Yes, one has to create a card for each new identity. After that, it's
all done.

> Given the amount of files, I think the software did a very good job.
> Moreover, it is nothing compared to the time required for naming 32000 files.

Some funny things : Picasa will find faces on statues, paintings,
posters etc..

>
> To answer to your questions: yes Picasa allows to perform requests including one or more identities and other search criterias (don't forget it's Google ;-)).

You only have to type the name in the search bar and there you go.

>
> Even if not connected with my Google account, I noticed that Picasa had a permanent connection to internet ports 80 (http) and 443 (https) so it is able to transmit your personal information to the Google servers.
>

Statistics which you can stop in the options.

[guilbert...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, August 18, 2013 11:13:29 AM UTC+2, Sandman wrote:

> Upgrading graphics cards might be trickier, of course. But then again,
> unless you're an avid PC gamer, you probably wouldn't do that very much
> anyway. And if you're an avid PC gamer, your future looks bleak as it is
> already - what with consoles killing it slowly :)

I am a little bit of everything ;-)

I am fond of new computer's hardware and things like optimizing my computer cooling testing some new heat sink fans or more performant thermal pastes etc ...

It is very easy to find compatible hardwares for homebuilt PC whereas you generally have to go to an Apple shop to upgrade your hardware.

Moreover, if I want to upgrade my computer, I can keep some parts whereas I doubt this is possible with your Mac.

But this is another debate ;-)

Anyway, if I succeeded in installing OSX from the Apple install disk, it would be fine.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:11:55 -0700 (PDT), guilbert...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Saturday, August 17, 2013 9:44:22 PM UTC 2, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>> Does it tag and identify by face? Does the "face" act as a search term similar to a keyword? In other words, if it identifies an image of having "John" in it, does Picasa then allow you to search for and find all images containing "John"?
>
>First of all, I am very new to Picasa 3.9 therefore I can make some mistakes.
>
>Here is my experience as a beginner:
>
>I installed Picasa yesterday. I gave it my photo directory. It took it about 12 hours to process (various processes including faces extractions) my 32000 pictures.
>
>At the end of the process, you have to learn to Picasa who's who.
>Picasa first groups the faces by similarities. So when you identify a face into a group, the whole group is associated to this same identity.
>If the similarity is less than a percentage, it asks you to confirm the identity => fortunately, Picasa was quite always right.
>Picasa identified more than 1000 different and unknown faces. I then identified the 50 faces I knew from this list.
>
>I had about 1200 faces to confirm/learn to Picasa and it took me about 6 hours.
>Given the amount of files, I think the software did a very good job.
>Moreover, it is nothing compared to the time required for naming 32000 files.
>

Each of us has a set of needs that can be unique, and any system or
way of working that fits those needs is good for the use.

I am gobsmacked, though, by a need to identify 1,200 different people.
Except for government security agencies, I simply can't imagine the
need to identify 1,200 people. Even with an Irish/Catholic family
background, I have no need to identify ten percent of that number, and
some of the ones I can identify I don't want to be close enough to to
take their photograph.


Good on you, though, if you've found a system that fits your need.

>To answer to your questions: yes Picasa allows to perform requests including one or more identities and other search criterias (don't forget it's Google ;-)).
>
>Even if not connected with my Google account, I noticed that Picasa had a permanent connection to internet ports 80 (http) and 443 (https) so it is able to transmit your personal information to the Google servers.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 18 Aug 2013 02:24:36 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>> >i defend against your attacks, not the methods themselves.
>>
>> Bullshit. You initiate them. Just as you have in this thread. I
>> posted some suggestions, and you started attacking the suggestions.
>> You weren't defending anything. You didn't offer anything. Nada.
>
>i offer ways of doing things that are *less* work for the user.
>

No you don't. Comments about not mentioning that changing a keyword
is trivial, or that there is no need to ever re-name a file, are not a
way to do less work. When you don't delineate a different way to do
something, you are merely carping and not suggesting a better way.

The stupidist thing you've ever come up with, though, is your advice
that pre-planning is not necessary. To jump into a major project
without giving it some mental attention and a thought to an overall
plan is monumentally stupid.

In this area, I do take the position that my way of doing things -
mentally determining an overall plan - is the best way and others
should do it. I can't "insist" on it though becase I have no control
over others or would want to have control.

[nospam]

In article <5d6d2287-f2b5-450b...@googlegroups.com>,

<guilbert...@gmail.com> wrote:

> It is very easy to find compatible hardwares for homebuilt PC whereas you
> generally have to go to an Apple shop to upgrade your hardware.

where do people get these ideas? macs use industry standard parts,
including sata hard drives and standard memory dimms. you can get them
anywhere.

> Moreover, if I want to upgrade my computer, I can keep some parts whereas I
> doubt this is possible with your Mac.

of course it's possible, but the problem with upgrading individual
parts is the system is designed to work as a whole and when you upgrade
one part you usually need to upgrade other parts to get the full
benefit, so you end up upgrading everything. might as well just buy a
new computer.

[nospam]

In article <e2m1191plg704mute...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper

<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >i offer ways of doing things that are *less* work for the user.
> >
> No you don't. Comments about not mentioning that changing a keyword
> is trivial, or that there is no need to ever re-name a file, are not a
> way to do less work.

yes it is. renaming files is a waste of time. lightroom takes care of
it for you, should it even be necessary. i don''t know how many times
this needs to be said to sink in.

> When you don't delineate a different way to do
> something, you are merely carping and not suggesting a better way.

wrong.

> The stupidist thing you've ever come up with, though, is your advice
> that pre-planning is not necessary. To jump into a major project
> without giving it some mental attention and a thought to an overall
> plan is monumentally stupid.

twisting again, i see. he can think about how he wants to organize, but
since it's easy to change it at any time, it's not essential. in other
words, preplanning is fine and not preplanning is fine too.

what he *doesn't* need to do is organize and rearrange the files before
bringing them into lightroom. that is a complete waste of time, since
lightroom does that for you. it's a duplication of work. lightroom also
does it with far more flexibility and without the limitations of a file
system, but that concept is entirely lost on you.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 18 Aug 2013 11:13:14 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <e2m1191plg704mute...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
><tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >i offer ways of doing things that are *less* work for the user.
>> >
>> No you don't. Comments about not mentioning that changing a keyword
>> is trivial, or that there is no need to ever re-name a file, are not a
>> way to do less work.
>
>yes it is. renaming files is a waste of time. lightroom takes care of
>it for you, should it even be necessary. i don''t know how many times
>this needs to be said to sink in.

That's the thing about you that is the most annoying. You have
decided that renaming files is a waste of time and that there's no
need to do so. Yet, some people *do* think there's a reason and/or
need to do so. This is where you attempt to force your way of doing
things on other people by suggesting that the practice is wrong and an
abuse of the system.

What business is it of yours that some people do what they think is
best for them?

If I want three images to appear in a certain sequence with other
actions, I'll do it.

>
>> When you don't delineate a different way to do
>> something, you are merely carping and not suggesting a better way.
>
>wrong.

It is exactly what you do.

>> The stupidist thing you've ever come up with, though, is your advice
>> that pre-planning is not necessary. To jump into a major project
>> without giving it some mental attention and a thought to an overall
>> plan is monumentally stupid.
>
>twisting again, i see. he can think about how he wants to organize, but
>since it's easy to change it at any time, it's not essential. in other
>words, preplanning is fine and not preplanning is fine too.

Stupid advice. You are advocating *more* work by saying that it can
be changed in the future. Preplanning can eliminate that extra work.

>what he *doesn't* need to do is organize and rearrange the files before
>bringing them into lightroom. that is a complete waste of time, since
>lightroom does that for you. it's a duplication of work. lightroom also
>does it with far more flexibility and without the limitations of a file
>system, but that concept is entirely lost on you.

I didn't ever say there's a need to do so. I said that some people,
with a certain current arrangement of extant folders and files, may
determine that there's a *reason* for them to do so. You want to deny
them that option because it's wrong in your view. That's more of you
imposing what you think is the right way on others.

It's your attempt to bully them into doing it your way. Luckily, you
are not in control and people can use their system the way they want
to.

[Sandman]

In article <5d6d2287-f2b5-450b...@googlegroups.com>,

guilbert...@gmail.com wrote:

> > Upgrading graphics cards might be trickier, of course. But then again,
> > unless you're an avid PC gamer, you probably wouldn't do that very much
> > anyway. And if you're an avid PC gamer, your future looks bleak as it is
> > already - what with consoles killing it slowly :)
>
> I am a little bit of everything ;-)
>
> I am fond of new computer's hardware and things like optimizing my computer
> cooling testing some new heat sink fans or more performant thermal pastes etc
> ...

I hear you, I recently upgraded my gaming rig to water cooling:

<http://gameconnect.se/pages/weblog/2012-03-19/Vattenkylning>

It's in Swedish though.

> It is very easy to find compatible hardwares for homebuilt PC whereas you
> generally have to go to an Apple shop to upgrade your hardware.

No doubt. But the trend move more and more towards mobile devices and
laptops, so you and me are a dying breed, my friend.

> Moreover, if I want to upgrade my computer, I can keep some parts whereas I
> doubt this is possible with your Mac.

Indeed. :)

> But this is another debate ;-)
>
> Anyway, if I succeeded in installing OSX from the Apple install disk, it
> would be fine.

Well, you won't :)

Not only does Apple no longer provide install disks for OSX (you buy a
Mac and upgrade via the App Store), nor would they ever support OX on
generic PC hardware.


--
Sandman[.net]

[Sandman]

In article <180820131113110207%nos...@nospam.invalid>,

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> > It is very easy to find compatible hardwares for homebuilt PC whereas you
> > generally have to go to an Apple shop to upgrade your hardware.
>
> where do people get these ideas? macs use industry standard parts,
> including sata hard drives and standard memory dimms. you can get them
> anywhere.

Disk and memory isn't everything. Like he said, he likes to tamper with
cooling, like I did here:

<http://gameconnect.se/texter/read.php?id=211788>

Which is relatively easy on a PC, but not so much on a Mac. Same goes
with upgrading processors, graphics cards and such. The only machine you
ever could do so in any extent was the Mac Pro, which is now being
replaced with a new tower that is less "open" to be tampered with, width
special graphics cards and motherboards.

> > Moreover, if I want to upgrade my computer, I can keep some parts whereas I
> > doubt this is possible with your Mac.
>
> of course it's possible, but the problem with upgrading individual
> parts is the system is designed to work as a whole and when you upgrade
> one part you usually need to upgrade other parts to get the full
> benefit, so you end up upgrading everything. might as well just buy a
> new computer.

This is, of course, not true at all. You don't upgrade the processor and
find yourself needing to upgrade the RAM as a direct result of that. Nor
do you add water cooling to the graphics cards and that force you to
upgrade the hard drives.

I'm an avid Mac guy, but the (historic) plethora of options for ATX
based computers on the PC sides has given huge price benefits for
someone not afraid to use a screwdriver on their computer.

Of course, this is currently rapidly changing. PC parts are getting
scarcer and more expensive and Moore's Law is no longer being followed
in terms of development.




--
Sandman[.net]

[Sandman]

In article <mr-58416D.19...@News.Individual.NET>,

Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:

> In article <5d6d2287-f2b5-450b...@googlegroups.com>,
> guilbert...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Upgrading graphics cards might be trickier, of course. But then again,
> > > unless you're an avid PC gamer, you probably wouldn't do that very much
> > > anyway. And if you're an avid PC gamer, your future looks bleak as it is
> > > already - what with consoles killing it slowly :)
> >
> > I am a little bit of everything ;-)
> >
> > I am fond of new computer's hardware and things like optimizing my computer
> > cooling testing some new heat sink fans or more performant thermal pastes
> > etc
> > ...
>
> I hear you, I recently upgraded my gaming rig to water cooling:
>
> <http://gameconnect.se/pages/weblog/2012-03-19/Vattenkylning>
>
> It's in Swedish though.

Sorry, use this link instead:

<http://gameconnect.se/texter/read.php?id=211788>




--
Sandman[.net]

[J. Clarke]

In article <40b7e748-8d03-4274...@googlegroups.com>,
guilbert...@gmail.com says...

You will need to install a boot loader first, and may need to install
third-party drivers if your hardware isn't identical to Apple's, but
pretty much yes. The key is to build your machine using known-
compatible hardware.

However there's a catch. Apple doesn't sell DVDs with the OS anymore--
it's download-only now and you have to have a working OS/X machine to
get the download.

[Eric Stevens]

On Sun, 18 Aug 2013 06:31:39 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

Clearly the OP is not driven to get work done.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

On Sun, 18 Aug 2013 06:31:40 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

You have had a number of these explained to you by various people over
the last year or so. I'm surprised you hadn't noticed.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

On Sun, 18 Aug 2013 11:13:14 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

Here we go again: this part of Lightroom *is* a file system.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[nospam]

In article <mr-EEBEC0.19...@News.Individual.NET>, Sandman

<m...@sandman.net> wrote:

> > > It is very easy to find compatible hardwares for homebuilt PC whereas you
> > > generally have to go to an Apple shop to upgrade your hardware.
> >
> > where do people get these ideas? macs use industry standard parts,
> > including sata hard drives and standard memory dimms. you can get them
> > anywhere.
>
> Disk and memory isn't everything. Like he said, he likes to tamper with
> cooling, like I did here:

cooling isn't normally an issue on macs so there's no need to tamper
with the cooling.

cooling can be on some accessories though, like early time capsules.

> <http://gameconnect.se/texter/read.php?id=211788>
>
> Which is relatively easy on a PC, but not so much on a Mac. Same goes
> with upgrading processors, graphics cards and such. The only machine you
> ever could do so in any extent was the Mac Pro, which is now being
> replaced with a new tower that is less "open" to be tampered with, width
> special graphics cards and motherboards.

what's the goal? tampering or doing actual work with it?

it reminds me of weekend mechanics who are always working on their cars
but never going anywhere with them.

> > > Moreover, if I want to upgrade my computer, I can keep some parts whereas
> > > I
> > > doubt this is possible with your Mac.
> >
> > of course it's possible, but the problem with upgrading individual
> > parts is the system is designed to work as a whole and when you upgrade
> > one part you usually need to upgrade other parts to get the full
> > benefit, so you end up upgrading everything. might as well just buy a
> > new computer.
>
> This is, of course, not true at all. You don't upgrade the processor and
> find yourself needing to upgrade the RAM as a direct result of that. Nor
> do you add water cooling to the graphics cards and that force you to
> upgrade the hard drives.

if you change one part, other parts become bottlenecks.

for instance, if you replace the hard drive with ssd, the rest of the
computer might not be able to take advantage of its speed, which means
you haven't really gained that much. it might be a little faster but
nowhere near its potential.

i have an older computer with sata 1 (1.5 gb/s). i could put an ssd in
it but the logic board is still limited to sata 1 speeds, so i won't
get that much benefit. newer logic boards have sata directly on the pci
bus, taking sata entirely out of the path, but that means a new logic
board. new logic boards also use faster memory, which means that also
needs to be replaced, and it might need a beefier power supply, so that
too has to be replaced. now you've replaced just about the entire
computer.

> I'm an avid Mac guy, but the (historic) plethora of options for ATX
> based computers on the PC sides has given huge price benefits for
> someone not afraid to use a screwdriver on their computer.

most people aren't interested in building computers. they want to get
work done.

> Of course, this is currently rapidly changing. PC parts are getting
> scarcer and more expensive and Moore's Law is no longer being followed
> in terms of development.

it's more that the world is moving to mobile and people don't build
laptops, tablets and smartphones.

[nospam]

In article <5fq119pvcjvevtdo4...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper

<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> >i offer ways of doing things that are *less* work for the user.
> >> >
> >> No you don't. Comments about not mentioning that changing a keyword
> >> is trivial, or that there is no need to ever re-name a file, are not a
> >> way to do less work.
> >
> >yes it is. renaming files is a waste of time. lightroom takes care of
> >it for you, should it even be necessary. i don''t know how many times
> >this needs to be said to sink in.
>
> That's the thing about you that is the most annoying. You have
> decided that renaming files is a waste of time and that there's no
> need to do so.

it is a complete waste of time and there isn't any need to do so.

the file name is just an index for the computer to find the data. using
it to mean something is a relic from the past. the file could be called
dscn1234.jpg or zzdfh3h.jpg or not even be a file in the classic sense.
it doesn't matter. the advantages of not interacting with the file
system directly are significant.

as i said, this concept is entirely lost on you and since you don't
understand it, you immediately reject it.

> Yet, some people *do* think there's a reason and/or
> need to do so.

they can do that and a whole lot more in lightroom.

> This is where you attempt to force your way of doing
> things on other people by suggesting that the practice is wrong and an
> abuse of the system.

i'm not forcing anything. you can still do things the oldfashioned and
inefficient way, but you need to realize just how inefficient and
convoluted it actually is.

it's as if someone wanted to enter a list of names into an address book
or some other database, and instead of just typing them in, they sat
down and alphabetized the list and then entered the names into the
computer. this is additional work that's completely unnecessary.

alphabetizing is something the computer can easily do, so there's no
point in the user doing it beforehand, *and* the computer can sort it
in many different ways, including reverse sort, sorting by first *or*
last name, sorting by state, by zipcode, etc.

so what did rearranging the list before entering it into the database
accomplish? absolutely nothing. it's a complete waste of time.

> What business is it of yours that some people do what they think is
> best for them?

the problem is they blindly dismiss alternatives without understanding
what it is they're rejecting.

you often say "it works for me". it might, but because technology has
advanced, there are now newer and much easier ways to do things. you
can certainly keep doing what you're doing but don't deny others from
moving forward and taking full advantage of the advances.

> If I want three images to appear in a certain sequence with other
> actions, I'll do it.

nobody is stopping you, even though there are easier and more flexible
ways to do what you want.

> >> When you don't delineate a different way to do
> >> something, you are merely carping and not suggesting a better way.
> >
> >wrong.
>
> It is exactly what you do.

wrong.

> >> The stupidist thing you've ever come up with, though, is your advice
> >> that pre-planning is not necessary. To jump into a major project
> >> without giving it some mental attention and a thought to an overall
> >> plan is monumentally stupid.
> >
> >twisting again, i see. he can think about how he wants to organize, but
> >since it's easy to change it at any time, it's not essential. in other
> >words, preplanning is fine and not preplanning is fine too.
>
> Stupid advice. You are advocating *more* work by saying that it can
> be changed in the future. Preplanning can eliminate that extra work.

there is no extra work. the existing library is in no worse shape just
by upgrading to a more capable system. preplanning does not change
anything.

in fact, once they upgrade, they might realize that what they thought
would be a good plan isn't all that good because it doesn't take
advantage of the new capabilities they got by upgrading to something
more capable.

> >what he *doesn't* need to do is organize and rearrange the files before
> >bringing them into lightroom. that is a complete waste of time, since
> >lightroom does that for you. it's a duplication of work. lightroom also
> >does it with far more flexibility and without the limitations of a file
> >system, but that concept is entirely lost on you.
>
> I didn't ever say there's a need to do so. I said that some people,
> with a certain current arrangement of extant folders and files, may
> determine that there's a *reason* for them to do so. You want to deny
> them that option because it's wrong in your view. That's more of you
> imposing what you think is the right way on others.

lightroom maintains that and nothing is lost. they can stay with their
old inefficient system and improve it at their own pace.

you really have no understanding of the advantages or what i'm even
suggesting and worse, you refuse to learn.

> It's your attempt to bully them into doing it your way. Luckily, you
> are not in control and people can use their system the way they want
> to.

if anyone is bullying, it's you.

all i do is explain the advantages of moving beyond the file system
with apps such as lightroom, and since you don't understand it, you
immediately criticize what i say.

as i said before, the concept is *completely* lost on you. you reject
it because you don't understand it, not because it doesn't fit your
needs. that's sad.