Thinking of a scanner
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: Iphoto 08 to iPhoto 09
Next: Apple Tech Support?
From: Woody on 2 Mar 2010 09:44 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > > No, this is an additional process. > > No, /yes/ this is another processing step, just like all the various > other processing steps. Yes, it is another process. > > 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? no, that was it. > > > > >> 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. How if the camera doesn't mount as a disk? Automator or Applescript can't get files from a camera that isn't mounted. Maybe image capture could do it, I don't know, I haven't tried, and any question where the answer is applescript is one I don't generally ask! > 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. It has never caused me a problem so that isn't an issue, and as I don't immediately know of another way of doing it, it saves more than half a mo as I would have to find another way,. > I've met automatic up/download of data like that before and it's *never* > not caused problems... Well, it has never caused me problems, so that is fine by me. > 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. As I say, I don't know how to do it manually. > > 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. ok, tell me which bit don't you understand and maybe I (or someone else) can explain it. I mean it in the sense of taking the camera image files from the camera and putting them on the Mac. > > > > 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. As I said, in the context of iPhoto, an 'event' is one occasion where you used your camera. It can cover any number of images but when importing, by default iPhoto counts as one day. So if you plug your camera into the computer, iPhoto will get the photos from the camera and put them into a number of events based on days. So if I look at my last photo imports, I have a number of 'events'. The last one is the one I took of a show I went to on saturday so is entitled 'Boscombe down show', and consists of all pictures I took that day. That is what would constitute and 'event' > 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. I never try to annoy you by refusing. I can only explain things as well as it is possible for me to do so. I am not a trainer, I have had no training in teaching. If I see something as obvious it is hard for me to explain it in another way unless I know exactly what you don't understand, and you rarely say what you don't understand. > > 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. Well, in its default state, iPhoto shows a series of photos in a list / grid, one per event (as above). if you double click on that image, it opens a view which shows you all the images in that event > > 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. Almost, yes, except when it goes over days, then it splits it per day. > How can iPhoto know about the identity of people in its pictures, for > heavens' sake? What's going on here? It has face detection software (admitedly not that great). It tags what it thinks are people in your photos. It gets quite a few right. > All this information - where does it come from? How is it all filed and > arranged? The face detection, no idea. The date and other info is in the exif info in the photo. > > 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. How so? That feature is there for you to use or not use as you wish. Most cameras don't have GPSs in, so it would be a manual process. > > > > 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'? An album is any group of photos you collect together and give a name to. The events are as described above. > > > > 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. No she isn't. She has a lot of problems with the finder. iPhoto though she took to straight away, I never really explained anything on that, apart from how to split and join events by her choosing, and how to set the date on her pictures from the old ones she scans. > 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. Obviously not. > 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. Maybe that is why she doesn't understand the finder. She does understand iPhoto fine though, it is her favourite application. Well, that and a card making thing. > > 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. Yes, which is a lot more complicated to her > What she does with her Mac is something else entirely, completely > unrelated to the above process except that she gets pictures. It is not unrelated as far as she is concerned. You *know* that a lot of other people can accept analogies that you can't. iPhoto is one of those programs that most people I know who have used it *get* straight away. I am not saying that as a put down of you, just the way you think is not the most usual case. This is not the case with most of the iLife software. iMovie (the new one) is awful, and iDVD takes a bit of thought. But iTunes and iPhoto work well in the way that a lot of people organise those things themselves. > 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'. There is - there are 20-30 of them on shelves around the wall. She never gets round to looking at them, but iPhoto she does. > > > > 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. If you take 100 pictures of a model, you wouldn't keep them all. In fact you wouldn't even generally keep most. > > > > 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). Well, yes, but someone has to make money training people. > Once upon a time, software came with a manual that meant the amateur > could teach him self. No longer... There are plenty of training resources available. A lot of people find those a lot more useful than the manual. It would seem the manual is not valued, as people woulldn't pay the money for the manual, or even read it when they had it > It's all about ensuring that hoi polloi such as me have to pay money to > the new aristos like you... Clearly it isn't. I can learn without a manual, and put in a lot of effort to avoid writing manuals, so I am not getting any money from people for manuals. Where I have written software and written documentation, people still ask questions that are covered in the documentation and when asked about it they admit they hadn't bothered looking. > > 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. Which is becasue my description of iPhoto is not the sort you need, and you won't explain to me what bit you need. As I said, I am not a trainer. > 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. I think in the iPhoto instance the main problem is that you can't see a need for it as you don't have a digital camera. Without a digital camera, iPhoto is no use whatsoever, in the way that iTunes is no use without music. > 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. They aren't. I would love you to be able to understand things as I spend ages trying to explain. Clearly it isn't the right description for 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? This is refering to aperture. Of course I dont. Why would I? This isn't a new thing. Back in the old days to develop photos and process them you needed a knowledge of chemistry and a much higher level of skill than you do now. If it is a professional level software, you need the skill or training to use it. iPhoto is there if you don't, you would only buy aperture if you knew how to use it (or knew the basis of the things it does). The software I use to do my job is complicated, but I don't want to lose its abilities to do the things it does in case someone who has no knowlefge of it finds it too hard to use. > > > > 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. No, selling your images is the heart of your business. Filing them is just something you need to do to do that. -- Woody
From: Woody on 2 Mar 2010 10:01 James Dore <james.dore(a)new.ox.ac.uk> wrote: > On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 13:49:44 -0000, Rowland McDonnell > > 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. Aperture does that, iPhoto just keeps the original, and the one you have modified. And a cached smaller one for display. -- Woody
From: Rowland McDonnell on 2 Mar 2010 10:27 Jim <jim(a)magrathea.plus.com> wrote: > 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. You can't let it go, can you Jim? You've got to add one last post - to have the last word, put me down one last time... You're a really nasty piece of work at times, you know that? Of course you do. 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: Richard Tobin on 2 Mar 2010 11:07 In article <1jeqb6f.h2c6ie16kw4l3N%real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid>, Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: >> 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? I don't use Raw format on my camera, so I don't know. It just copies the JPG files. >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? Yes, I believe so. >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? Again, I believe so. But the idea of iPhoto is not really to manage some photos you already have on the computer, but to be the one place where you keep them. >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? Photos on a camera will normally store the date they were taken in the JPG file (along with exposure etc). Presumably the various Raw formats do the same. >and >it seems that you're telling me that iPhoto uses the label `Event' when >it means `date' or something. Yes, though I haven't looked closely at exactly how it identifies an Event. >> 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. I mean it copies the copy it originally took from the camera. The assumption is that you won't have any other more original original, because you deleted it from your camera. It seems that you don't plan to work like that. >Or do you mean that iPhoto keeps a copy of the image each time you >perform an editing step? I'm not sure about that. It may just keep the copy it took from the camera and the latest edited version, or perhaps a version from each run of iPhoto - I don't have time to try it out right now. >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. If you import from your camera, and delete the photos on the camera afterwards, and never edit your photos, it will keep just one version plus a thumbnail. I suspect that's what most people do. If you already have your photos in files somewhere else, then it will be inefficient. -- Richard -- Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.
From: Richard Tobin on 2 Mar 2010 11:15
In article <1jeqeue.ke3h4nqwv8yhN%real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid>, Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: >I'm not sure how days near together ties up with an `event'. Some sort >of paradigm that I don't understand, I expect. Many people only use their camera a few times a year. Birthdays, holidays, Christmas, visiting relatives, that sort of thing. They don't take photos except of "events". iPhoto's Events probably match that quite well. >> 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. >Righto. As someone else noted, that's not how iPhoto does it. It keeps the modified JPG file. >> 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. >I don't see that it's any more useful with raw files than any other sort >- what's special about raw files compared to others that makes this >approach more suitable for raw than other file formats? They're much bigger, aren't they? (As I said, I don't use them.) So keeping copies would be more expensive. -- Richard -- Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind. |