Thinking of a scanner
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: Iphoto 08 to iPhoto 09
Next: Apple Tech Support?
From: Rowland McDonnell on 2 Mar 2010 08:19 Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > Rowland McDonnell wrote: > > > > Andy Hewitt<thewildrover(a)me.com> wrote: [snip] > > > 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. > > > No, this is an additional process. No, /yes/ this is another processing step, just like all the various other processing steps. > You have to convert it from raw to > another format, before you have a format the system software can open > and process on the screen. So two processing steps. Okay. So 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. > > The finder permits it for some cameras that appears on the desktop as a > disk, and you can copy it off (so in my case, with my canon but not with > my fuji), but it doesn't automate the process. <puzzled> But it could do - if you wrote software to do it, using Automator and Applescript and so on. Moreover: There's nothing particualrly helful about automatically slurping data down a line when the gadget's connected - saves half a mo in human time, and always causes problems with the automated up/download of data. I've met automatic up/download of data like that before and it's *never* not caused problems... I'd much rather do it manually - almost as quick, and more convenient because it avoids the problems of the automated processes which - every once in a while - /will/ trip you up badly. > With iPhoto, you plug the camera in, OSX starts iPhoto and asks if you > want to import the pictures (it shows you them as well if you want to > import just a few). At this stage it lets you give a name to the import. <deeply puzzled> I don't understand any of that. `Import pictures'? What does that mean? I've seen the term in iPhoto, but I still have no idea what it means. I do not understand `import'ing images as a concept with respect to iPhoto. It makes no sense at all to me. > > > 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? > > By a variety of methods. I expect so, but I don't know anything about any of this busines. > By default, iPhoto shows you groups of images > as 'events', which if you move the mouse over you can see all of. Can you explain that? Describing what UI manpulations to perform is not telling me `how' - I need to understand the processes, and I cannot work that out by examining the UI or by manipulating the UI. I've tried. Please do not just give me a description of what UI manipulations to perform, using the terminology that you understand which you know I do not understand. Please don't do that because it's just annoying - all it does is let me know that you *could* explain things to me but have decided to annoy me by refusing to. > If you > double click the events you can see all the photos in that event. I don't know what an event is in this context, so I can't understand this. > On the side panel you have an option to see by events (one image per > event), by photos (all of them in a list), by person (shows you a cork > board with each person, and clicking a person will show you all photos > with that person in), or location, I don't understand `event', what `by photos' means, what `by person' means, and so on - not in the context of iPhoto. All you've done is let it slurp in pictures. Apparently, iPhoto assumes that `all the photos downloaded in one batch' belong to one `event' whatever that might be. I don't know what that means. How can iPhoto know about the identity of people in its pictures, for heavens' sake? What's going on here? All this information - where does it come from? How is it all filed and arranged? > which shows you a map of the world > with pins in where your photos are. I assume this map comes from google, > it looks like it. <even more puzzled> Sounds like a huge privacy invasion to me. > > > 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? > > There is a screensaver that can pick photos from you iPhoto album / > individual events and display them in a variety of ways. Okay, but what is an `iPhoto album / individual events'? > > > 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. > > In my mums case, a file means nothing to her, she doesn't file anything > in sensible ways, she doesn't know where things go. Taking a file of a > camera and putting in the finder means nothing. <puzzled> Well, of course, she'll be totally unable to understand *YOUR* explanations, but equally of course your mother is quite capable of understanding putting pictures onto a computer using the Mac Finder. It's not *her* fault if you are not able to explain things to people who don't already understand the thing you're explaining. I mention that because your explanation above can't possibly be understood by anyone who's not already completely familiar with the thing you're talking about. > Taking 'photos' off a camera and displaying them in an 'album' is > something that makes perfect sense to her, it is what she has always > done with ordinary cameras so she loves iPhoto. But you're wrong because your mum has sent a film off for processing and then got the paper photos back in the post in an envelope, and then she's taken these paper prints and filed them in a book. What she does with her Mac is something else entirely, completely unrelated to the above process except that she gets pictures. So please explain, please. > She really loves that > she can access her photos in a way that she cant so easily in her photo > albums. Except that there is no `album'. > > > 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? > > If you are doing press or professional photos, chances are you have many > photos of the same thing, but you don't actually want all of them. You > want to show a number of photos at the same time to see which you want > to keep. Erm, could you try again? I don't understand. > > > 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? > > Well, amateurs can get access to that training if they want .... at a cost of hundreds of pounds *at least* (for a course lasting a couple of days). Once upon a time, software came with a manual that meant the amateur could teach him self. No longer... It's all about ensuring that hoi polloi such as me have to pay money to the new aristos like you... > and some > people can work it out themselves, The problem is that in general, people cannot do so. I can't - even with your `explanation' of what iPhoto does, I've no idea what iPhoto does or how to use it. You won't explain things, you see - you just describe operations using language which cannot be understood by someone who doesn't already understand how to do what you're describing. In other words, your explanations of how to do things are so fundamentally incapable of comprehension that I'm coming round to the idea that they're just deliberate wind-ups: you write these deliberately useless explanations for the pleasure of seeing me get unhappy about not being able to understand you. > but yes, it is not a consumer level > application designed for all, it is designed for a specific market, > where the people using it know what they are doing. The new aristocracy, excluding `those who don't come from the right background'. You don't feel slightly sickened by this? > > > 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? > > Aperture editing is mainly about taking pictures, getting the colour > balance right, and converting it from a raw picture to one that you can > use in an image editing application, such as photoshop. It doesn't have > tools for image manipulation. Yes, but what does `export images for further processing' mean? > If you are taking pictures for magazines (one of its target market > jobs), once you have your picture of your model, you can get her skin > colour right in aperture, but she still is normal human shape with > normal human imperfections, so you need to use photoshop to stretch her > into a barbie. Erm? I don't understand at all. What does this have to do with `exporting' images? > > > 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. > > What I mean is that if you are a professional photographer, you are more > interested in the images that you want to get for your customers than > the files. You're 100% absolutely and totally utterly and completely wrong. If you are a profesional photographer, filing your images is the heart of your business. Any time I've read the details of how a professional photographer works it turns out that *BECAUSE* their living depends on getting images to customers, secure stable reliable filing is the very heart and soul of their business. .... because without that very secure file store for the images, the images are not available for sale ... I've read many articles in the professional photography press on how to do your photo filing. Freezers full of negatives is/was common. > Generally you would process the pictures you want, and then > export them to a CD as a specific job. You wouldn't really leave them > all on your machine, so filing isn't such a major issue. Sorry, I've no idea what you mean. Professional photographers in many cases do have all their available images available on-line for purchase here&now. How do you think professional image libraries work these days, eh? You do really think that you send off a cheque and SAE and wait for an envelope to land on your desk containing some prints/transparencies? Of course they bloody well don't. Not that I know what they do do, but they don't work like that any more[1]. I /assume/ that the typical professional photographer keeps his/her entire (modern) photo library available on-line at all times, so that they can have their images sold more readily. Surely nothing else makes sense? And that means `All images on mounted file store', doesn't it? (The wedding photo type might do things differently, but I know nothing about that side of the business) Rowland. [1] I never did bother finding out for sure, but I assume that big newspapers and things have credit accounts with the picture libraries. Nuff sed? Mere mortals would have to pay up front; big rich operations get credit. Or they'll buy from someone else... -- 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: Richard Tobin on 2 Mar 2010 08:29 In article <1jeq9e8.2pkvut1i8pseaN%real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid>, Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: >What does it mean when iPhoto `imports' a picture? It copies it from your camera, flash card, or somewhere else, and puts the copy in the "Pictures/iPhoto Library" directory. Normally you import all the pictures on the camera at once. It makes an entry for each picture in its database (which identifies the set of pictures you've imported as a "roll", and groups them into "events" by date). It probably also creates a thumbnail image. The details have varied with versions of iPhoto but that's the general idea. After importing it optionally deletes the pictures from the camera or card. If you then modify a picture in iPhoto (cropping it for instance) it keeps the original as well as the modified version. -- Richard -- Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.
From: Rowland McDonnell on 2 Mar 2010 08:49 Richard Tobin <richard(a)cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > >What does it mean when iPhoto `imports' a picture? > > It copies it from your camera, flash card, or somewhere else, and puts > the copy in the "Pictures/iPhoto Library" directory. Righto - just the RAW format original data, yes? But also: I can `import' an image into iPhoto from my HD. What happens when I do that? The same thing? Copies the file into Pictures/iPhoto Library? So if I were to use iPhoto for `managing' my images, I would in fact be using it to operate on *copies* of my images, the original files being left out of sight and out of mind of iPhoto? In other words, to use it, I'd have to use twice as much storage space for my images? > Normally you > import all the pictures on the camera at once. Uhuh. > It makes an entry for > each picture in its database (which identifies the set of pictures > you've imported as a "roll", and groups them into "events" by date). Uhuh - `entry for each pic in its database' makes sense. This `event' lark and dates - could you explain more? `Groups them into events by date' - erm? I don't know what that means. What dates?, and it seems that you're telling me that iPhoto uses the label `Event' when it means `date' or something. I'm not getting that side of things understood at all. > It probably also creates a thumbnail image. The details have varied > with versions of iPhoto but that's the general idea. > > After importing it optionally deletes the pictures from the camera or > card. Uhuh. > If you then modify a picture in iPhoto (cropping it for instance) it > keeps the original as well as the modified version. Uhuh. When you say `keeps the original as well as the modified version' - well, what's the `orignal'? You've told me that iPhoto makes a copy of the original so of course it's working on a copy. Or do you mean that iPhoto keeps a copy of the image each time you perform an editing step? So far, I'm not so keen on iPhoto - seems to be a huge waste of disc space in terms of what it goes with the images. 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 2 Mar 2010 08:58 On 2010-03-02, Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > I explained `how so' below. You're just being insulting again. > <snip all the usual> I wish you luck in your attempts to uderstand iPhoto. I'm obviously the wrong person to try to explain it to you. Jim -- http://www.ursaMinorBeta.co.uk http://twitter.com/GreyAreaUK "Get over here. Now. Might be advisable to wear brown trousers and a shirt the colour of blood." Malcolm Tucker, "The Thick of It"
From: James Dore on 2 Mar 2010 09:26
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 13:49:44 -0000, Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > Richard Tobin <richard(a)cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote: >> It makes an entry for >> each picture in its database (which identifies the set of pictures >> you've imported as a "roll", and groups them into "events" by date). > > Uhuh - `entry for each pic in its database' makes sense. > > This `event' lark and dates - could you explain more? `Groups them into > events by date' - erm? I don't know what that means. What dates?, and > it seems that you're telling me that iPhoto uses the label `Event' when > it means `date' or something. > > I'm not getting that side of things understood at all. This is speculation on my part, based on seeing what iPhoto does with Mrs. D's images: It looks at date ranges. An assumption appears to have been made that you don't use your camera continuously, and it uses the gaps in date/time info to make a guess at how to group photos in 'events'. Often, it's correct. For instance, large number of photos taken between yesterday and the day before yesterday will get clumped together in one event, and another group taken two weeks back will get clumped together in another. This is not rigid; you are at liberty to define your own events, and chuck out the ones iPhoto has guessed at. >> It probably also creates a thumbnail image. The details have varied >> with versions of iPhoto but that's the general idea. >> >> After importing it optionally deletes the pictures from the camera or >> card. > > Uhuh. > >> If you then modify a picture in iPhoto (cropping it for instance) it >> keeps the original as well as the modified version. > > Uhuh. > > When you say `keeps the original as well as the modified version' - > well, what's the `orignal'? You've told me that iPhoto makes a copy of > the original so of course it's working on a copy. That's splitting hairs slightly, as original in the context of iPhoto is the image as it was taken off the camera or first imported from wherever, in whatever format it was held. If that file is resident elsewhere on your hard disk, it might maintain a reference to that copy, but I suspect it makes it's own duplicate within the iPhoto library and that becomes iPhoto's "original". The iPhoto "original" is the image as it was at first import into iPhoto. > Or do you mean that iPhoto keeps a copy of the image each time you > perform an editing step? No. This would generate too much data! It maintains a list of the edits you do to a photo, and replays them when you display it, changing it as per the list of edits in realtime. This is especially useful with raw format images, as the history of edits is reversible without damage to the original file, and without maintaining multiple copies of the file. You have the (iPhoto) original, and a list of operations (edits, actions, whatever) performed on that photo to season it to your taste. When you want to output that edited image somewhere else (print, web, cd of finished images, for instance), only then is a new file created with all the right edits applied. > So far, I'm not so keen on iPhoto - seems to be a huge waste of disc > space in terms of what it goes with the images. True of most photo editing apps. However, the newer ones use this 'original+edit list' method to cut down on storage used. Since computers now have the processing power to do complex image manipulation in a reasonably short time, this is considered to be a good trade off, since permanent disk storage is very expensive compared to CPU cycles. It also adds the security of undoable history, and your 'original' images kept intact within the iPhoto (or other, eg Aperture, Light Room, etc) system. > Rowland. Cheers, James -- James Dore New College IT Officer james.dore(a)new / it-support(a)new |