Thinking of a scanner
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: Iphoto 08 to iPhoto 09
Next: Apple Tech Support?
From: Jim on 2 Mar 2010 15:12 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > I think he was just trying to wind me up, and that he succeeded. No, I was trying to be helpful. If I ever want to actually insult you I assure you I will be a lot more direct. Jim -- "Microsoft admitted its Vista operating system was a 'less good product' in what IT experts have described as the most ambitious understatement since the captain of the Titanic reported some slightly damp tablecloths." http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
From: Richard Tobin on 2 Mar 2010 15:20 In article <1jeqrq8.1baz0v8106ttqfN%real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid>, Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: >> 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. >Hmm. There's no chance at all I'd trust it to do that, none whatsoever. I sympathise with that view. I don't trust anything that only exists in databases. However, the files it copies from the camera are there as plain files, so provided you make regular backups you have not lost anything. Of course, if you're worried that iPhoto may secretly delete some of your photos in a fit of pique (as I am) then you should archive them to some permanent medium as well as a regular backup. >I'll use iTunes happily, because [...] I use iTunes happily, because it's just a copy of my CDs. That does make it rather different. >> 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. >Do you know how I can find out more about this? No, sorry. Googling for "Canon raw format" produced lots of likely-looking results though. >> Yes, though I haven't looked closely at exactly how it identifies an >> Event. >And waht does it do with these `event' labels? Uses them to present the pictures to you in groups. >Can hardly plan on using something I don't understand, >can I now? Another point where you differ from 99% of the population... -- Richard -- Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.
From: Jim on 2 Mar 2010 15:31 Richard Tobin <richard(a)cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > >> 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. > > >Do you know how I can find out more about this? > > No, sorry. Googling for "Canon raw format" produced lots of > likely-looking results though. I think Rowland's talking about EXIF in general, not just RAW, in which case Googling 'image exif data' might be helpful. I'd start here: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchangeable_image_file_format> Jim -- "Microsoft admitted its Vista operating system was a 'less good product' in what IT experts have described as the most ambitious understatement since the captain of the Titanic reported some slightly damp tablecloths." http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
From: Rowland McDonnell on 2 Mar 2010 15:46 Richard Tobin <richard(a)cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > >> 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. > > >Hmm. There's no chance at all I'd trust it to do that, none whatsoever. > > I sympathise with that view. I don't trust anything that only exists > in databases. However, the files it copies from the camera are there > as plain files, so provided you make regular backups you have not lost > anything. Of course, if you're worried that iPhoto may secretly > delete some of your photos in a fit of pique (as I am) then you should > archive them to some permanent medium as well as a regular backup. Yeah. Umm. Okay, well, I'm getting a better picture now. You may shoot me for that one. > >I'll use iTunes happily, because [...] > > I use iTunes happily, because it's just a copy of my CDs. That does > make it rather different. Different, y'see - Jim was trying to make out that they're the same. Thing is, it seems that there *is* a way to make iPhoto work on yer photos without having to make a copy of 'em. So... > >> 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. > > >Do you know how I can find out more about this? > > No, sorry. Googling for "Canon raw format" produced lots of > likely-looking results though. Righto - ta. > >> Yes, though I haven't looked closely at exactly how it identifies an > >> Event. > > >And waht does it do with these `event' labels? > > Uses them to present the pictures to you in groups. Righto. I need a manual. > >Can hardly plan on using something I don't understand, > >can I now? > > Another point where you differ from 99% of the population... Erm, not really. It was 100% normal amongst the people I grew up with. I mean, everyone I knew with a motorcycle when I was young could strip and rebuild their bike. Often had to... I knew a lot of people who replaced their car engines, too - although they always preferred to get a reconditioned unit if possible... Thing is, the day my baby bro ripped his Beetle engine to shreds (don't ask), the rest of the family took it as read that he'd just take it out and repair it, new crankshaft and all. And he did. And then when I was growing up, home computers appeared. Everyone I knew with one of them understood it better than I did, so it seemed. I have mentioned the chap who built himself a 68000 2nd CPU box for his BBC micro and then wrote his own compiler so he could use the CPU? Normal, that is, innit? 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: Peter Ceresole on 2 Mar 2010 15:58
Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > I've got an aunt most of whose family photos are almost certainly going > to outlast almost everything saved in iPhoto albums - because most of > her family photos originate as black and white negatives. <shrug> I > always test expected storage reliability against that gold, no silver > halide, standard. Even B&W negs can deteriorate, and are easily damaged. To last a long time, they have to be carefully and expensively stored. Colour photo stability is horrific- probably the best was Kodachrome 1, unless you go to the considerable cost and trouble of producing monochrome colour separation images. But if you keep backups of your digital pictures, which you should anyway, and transfer/copy them to new computers as you buy them, because digital copies are identical to the originals, the life of your digital images should be as long as anywone is willing to copy them. Potentially much greater than that of any physical picture. The same goes for books. Unless they are printed on parchment or archive quality paper, which is extremely expensive and as a result quite unusual, then their life is extremely variable. It may be very long, but for instance I have a copy of a book, 'Post D', printed in 1941, which I like a great deal and read every year or two. As far as I know it is out of print and has been for some time. My copy is turning very brown. Within a few years the paper will start to disintegrate. There is nothing that I, as the book's owner, can realistically do to prevent this. No; in practice, through copying and updating the formats, both easy and low cost processes, digital media will in the vast majority of cases outlast physical analogue media. > Worth thinking about, I think. Yes, it is. -- Peter |