Thinking of a scanner
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: Iphoto 08 to iPhoto 09
Next: Apple Tech Support?
From: Rowland McDonnell on 27 Feb 2010 12:14 Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell wrote: > > Andy Hewitt<thewildrover(a)me.com> wrote: > > > >> Rowland McDonnell<real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > >> > >>> Andy Hewitt<thewildrover(a)me.com> wrote: > > [snip] > > > >>>>> I don't understand that. JPEG/JFIF is a file format. You don't use it > >>>>> for viewing, you use it for storing/transmitting. > >>>> > >>>> Well, you cannot directly view a Raw file, > >>> > >>> One cannot directly see *any* image stored as a serial stream of bits in > >>> computer memory, until it is subjected to processing and displayed on a > >>> graphical output device. > >> > >> Er, yes. But the Raw files aren't even capable of that, although MacOS > >> can now do this by post-processing them 'on the fly'. > > > > <puzzled> No, raw camera files do contain the image, which as with all > > computer files containing images, needs to be subjected to processing > > including rendering on a display before your eyes see an image: the > > rendering process is a processing step, don't forget. > > True. But what he is saying is that the Mac OSX core graphics doesn't > contain a plugin to allow raw files to be converted to an onscreen > bitmap, like they do for gif/png/jpg etc. Well, of course - but so what? > So you have to have another > step to convert it to one of those formats before the mac can process it > natively. <deeply puzzled> `Process it natively'? By which you mean one has to convert the stored data into a form that is interpreted as an image displayed on a screen - certainly. So? That process is necessary for any display of any image using any computer - except the /really/ primitive sort like the Manchester Baby, where the RAM mirror is a raster display on an oscilloscope. The sort of computer which has a raster disply - the type we're used to using as PCs - /that/ sort has to `convert for display' no matter what. > >> but I'm not really sure what it > >> is you're not getting. > > > > What iPhoto does and what Aperture does. > > iPhoto is a 'consumer level' (ie, ordinary cheap digital camera) photo > manager. It enables you to connect your camera, download the photos from > your camera, and store them in one central place. The Finder permits that. > This is to enable you to look through your photos by date, by 'event' > (ie, the time where you took your camera out and started taking > pictures, such as a party or day out), by photos containing a person or > (assuming you have the time to enter the details), by location that the > photo was taken. How? > It enables a very small amount of basic editing (red eye, rotation, > course image adjustment) and printing. Righto. >It also enable display as a > screensaver. What do you mean by that? > It is designed to abstract the details of the physical files that came > from the camera away from those people (ie, my mum) who don't want to or > cannot deal with them What you do you mean by that? - I've no idea what you're referring to at all. > Aperture is a 'Professional level' photo manager. It enables you to > connect your camera, download the photos, The Finder permits that. > bulk compare a number of > similar images, What does that mean? > do a number of complicated low level adjustments to the > colour of the files .... which, I assume, can only be used by those who have professional training and experience of the sort that amateurs simply can't get access to? > and then export a subset of those images for further > processing. This sort of thing, I don't understand - `export images for further processing' - what does that mean? > It is designed to abstract the details of the physical files for people > who have no interest in file management, but care more about the images > and providing those images to other people (such as customers and clients). Could you explain that? I've no idea at all what it means. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Rowland McDonnell on 27 Feb 2010 12:14 Jim <jim(a)magrathea.plus.com> wrote: > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > >> > >> What iPhoto does and what Aperture does. > > > > iPhoto is a 'consumer level' (ie, ordinary cheap digital camera) photo > > manager. It enables you to connect your camera, download the photos from > > your camera, and store them in one central place. > > It is, effectively, iTunes for pictures. > > iTunes: iPhoto: > ------- ------- > Insert an audio CD Plug in a digital camera containing pictures > Rip the tracks from the CD Download the pictures from the camera to > to the iTunes library the iPhoto library > Create albums that contain Create albums that contain pictures > music tracks Except that description's not right. In iTunes, the albums full of music tracks are the same as the CDs I rip. With pictures, that kind of organization isn't applicable since the albums don't exist and there's no way that the simple flat filing of iTunes could possibly improve on the Finder's ability to organize files into albums and also to preview the files. So there's something I don't get - which is bloody obvious: the iPhoto interface is so complicated and full of unexplained bits, and clearly uses a totally different approach to keeping track of pictures and storing files. And I can't find out what that approach is! > > And that's essentianlly it. Both can do a lot more with the stuff you > import, both contain basic editing tools (iTunes has a graphic equalizer, > iPhoto can alter brightness, contrast etc) but essentially they're both just > ways of getting certain types of files into one place where you can do what > you want with them. But the Finder does that job for me for most things. How does iPhoto give me anything more? All I can see is that it's saying `Trust the computer, the computer is your friend, do what Apple tells you and it will all be lovely'. But since it has a need to `import' pictures and I don't know what that means - well, I'm certainly not going to trust it. What does it do when it `imports'? What exactly is its filing mechanism? No idea - need to know before I can trust it. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Jim on 27 Feb 2010 12:47 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > It is, effectively, iTunes for pictures. > > > > iTunes: iPhoto: > > ------- ------- > > Insert an audio CD Plug in a digital camera containing pic... > > Rip the tracks from the CD Download the pictures from the camera to > > to the iTunes library the iPhoto library > > Create albums that contain Create albums that contain pictures > > music tracks > > Except that description's not right. Yes it _is_ right. > In iTunes, the albums full of music tracks are the same as the CDs I > rip. But they don't have to be, do they? Sure, you can create albums that are nothing but duplicates of the physical media, but you don't have to stick that that rigid way of doing things. You can make your own albums that contain whatever tracks you want. iPhoto is the same. > With pictures, that kind of organization isn't applicable since the > albums don't exist and there's no way that the simple flat filing of > iTunes could possibly improve on the Finder's ability to organize files > into albums and also to preview the files. One of the points of iPhoto is you make your own albums. Same as iTunes. If you want a single album called 'Trees' that contains all the photos of trees you've taken over the years, you can do that. > So there's something I don't get - which is bloody obvious: the iPhoto > interface is so complicated and full of unexplained bits, and clearly > uses a totally different approach to keeping track of pictures and > storing files. And I can't find out what that approach is! > > > > > And that's essentianlly it. Both can do a lot more with the stuff you > > import, both contain basic editing tools (iTunes has a graphic equalizer, > > iPhoto can alter brightness, contrast etc) but essentially they're both just > > ways of getting certain types of files into one place where you can do what > > you want with them. > > But the Finder does that job for me for most things. How does iPhoto > give me anything more? All I can see is that it's saying `Trust the > computer, the computer is your friend, do what Apple tells you and it > will all be lovely'. But since it has a need to `import' pictures and I > don't know what that means - well, I'm certainly not going to trust it. > What does it do when it `imports'? It's generally copying pictures from an external source, typically a digital camera. > What exactly is its filing > mechanism? Dated folders + Roll numbers. For instance: if I look in my iPhoto folder there's a folder called 'Originals'. Opening this reveals three folders - '2007', '2008', '2009' These in turn contain folders called 'Roll 1', 'Roll 2' etc. These contain the original pictures from whatever camera was used at the time. A new 'Roll' folder is created every time I connect the camera and import any pictures stored on it. Jim -- http://www.ursaMinorBeta.co.uk http://twitter.com/GreyAreaUK Please help save Bletchley Park - sign the petition for Government funding at: (open to UK residents and ex.pats) http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/BletchleyPark/ Thank you.
From: Woody on 27 Feb 2010 15:07 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > Jim <jim(a)magrathea.plus.com> wrote: > > > And that's essentianlly it. Both can do a lot more with the stuff you > > import, both contain basic editing tools (iTunes has a graphic equalizer, > > iPhoto can alter brightness, contrast etc) but essentially they're both just > > ways of getting certain types of files into one place where you can do what > > you want with them. > > But the Finder does that job for me for most things. How does iPhoto > give me anything more? I think the issue here is more that you say that you don't have a digital camera. If you don't have a digital camera, iPhoto is unlikely to be that useful to you. Same as if you have iTunes and no CDs (or downloaded music). > But since it has a need to `import' pictures and I > don't know what that means - well, I'm certainly not going to trust it. > What does it do when it `imports'? What exactly is its filing > mechanism? No idea - need to know before I can trust it. Same as iTunes. You can either get it to keep your photos organised in its own date ordered filing system, or get it to just reference the photos where they are. Importing doesn't change the photos in any way. -- Woody www.alienrat.com
From: Woody on 27 Feb 2010 15:07
Jim <jim(a)magrathea.plus.com> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > What exactly is its filing > > mechanism? > > Dated folders + Roll numbers. > > For instance: if I look in my iPhoto folder there's a folder called > 'Originals'. Opening this reveals three folders - '2007', '2008', '2009' > > These in turn contain folders called 'Roll 1', 'Roll 2' etc. These > contain the original pictures from whatever camera was used at the time. Although the rolls aren't called rolls if you give them names, so my macbook iPhoto library (which is a subset of files on the iMac upstairs) looks like this in the finder: <http://img.skitch.com/20100227-xb9m3futcns7qinfpsf5p1jjw4.jpg> That is the original photo section, the folder marked modified are the ones that are shown. There are 2.4G of modified photos, and 23G of originals, so the original is shown unless there is an original of the same name (the file names are just the sequence numbers the camera uses) -- Woody www.alienrat.com |