What is a better program to replace Apple Mac OS X 10.5.7's iPhoto?
in [Mac Applications]
|
Prev: 3-D font programs?
Next: iMail Rejecting Password
From: nospam on 18 Dec 2009 00:56 In article <isw-0E4509.21500417122009@[216.168.3.50]>, isw <isw(a)witzend.com> wrote: > > > iPhoto is really is quite good at doing those basic things, IMO. > > > > Just don't try to do any real editing with it! > > There is an easy option to tell it "Use an external editor"; then you > can do "real" editing whenever you want. even with an external app, editing in iphoto is more limited as compared with something like aperture or lightroom, particularly with raw. > I used to use Photoshop, but > that broke when I moved to Leopard; now I use GIMP. photoshop did not break in leopard, except perhaps if it was a very old version.
From: isw on 18 Dec 2009 00:59 In article <hgenvp$h29$1(a)news.albasani.net>, AV3 <arvimide(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > On Dec/17/2009 8:3244 PM, Jolly Roger wrote: > > In article<drache-59ABFD.18465817122009(a)nothing.attdns.com>, > > erilar<drache(a)chibardun.net.invalid> wrote: > > > >> In article<jollyroger-302D52.15400617122009(a)news.individual.net>, > >> Jolly Roger<jollyroger(a)pobox.com> wrote: > >> > >>> ... > >> > >> In my case, iPhoto is also a poor organizer. > > > > How is iPhoto a poor organizer, exactly, in your opinion? > > > > > In my opinion, its big problem is how to find a particular picture on > the hard disk. You assign a name to the picture and put it in an album, > but iPhoto stores it in a particular year under a code name. I have > family pictures (for instance) of individuals from every year of my > catalogue, so finding an individual picture depends not on searching but > on opening iPhoto and (in effect) finding the original of an alias. I > would prefer to be able to search directly by my own criteria. Even though I don't let iPhoto store my images where it pleases, I still value its organizing functions; albums let your images "be" in more than one place. And once you find a photo in iPhoto, it's one click to locate the file. Are you saying that you can't set up the search criteria in iPhoto to do what you can do in Finder? Got an example? Isaac
From: nospam on 18 Dec 2009 01:00 In article <isw-88C30B.21533317122009@[216.168.3.50]>, isw <isw(a)witzend.com> wrote: > The real annoyance I have with iPhoto's editing is that there's no way > to tell it that you *want* to overwrite the original file with the new > version. why would you ever want to do that? the original file should be considered to be a digital negative, never to be modified, ever. since it tracks the changes, you always have the latest version. non-destructive editing is a feature. > Doing it the "Apple" way will cause iPhoto to slowly but surely > take away the structure of folders you so carefully created to hold your > images, because it stores the altered versions internally. the 'apple' way is a very good way, and one which many other companies use, including adobe. > There is a pretty easy way around that, but it's annoying to have to do > it. why bother?
From: isw on 18 Dec 2009 01:04 In article <171220092132311911%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <hgenvp$h29$1(a)news.albasani.net>, AV3 > <arvimide(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > > > > How is iPhoto a poor organizer, exactly, in your opinion? > > > > In my opinion, its big problem is how to find a particular picture on > > the hard disk. You assign a name to the picture and put it in an album, > > but iPhoto stores it in a particular year under a code name. I have > > family pictures (for instance) of individuals from every year of my > > catalogue, so finding an individual picture depends not on searching but > > on opening iPhoto and (in effect) finding the original of an alias. I > > would prefer to be able to search directly by my own criteria. > > that's what keywords are for! > > give the photo a bunch of keywords and you can find all related photos, > regardless of what folder they live in. for your family photos, use the > names of the people for keywords (and/or the locations), or just let > iphoto's faces (and places) handle it. > > folders are very restrictive and do not scale. that's why so many apps > (not just iphoto) are breaking away from it. I do agree, but one of the things I'm doing is organizing a *bunch* of old family photos, to pass on to my kids. As long as they have Macs *that support iPhoto*, things will work fine, but *what do you do in a Macless world* - say, towards the end of the kids' lifetimes? Me, I can't think of anything better than giving the image files significant names, and organizing them into folders. It'll be a long, long time before there are no JPEG viewers... Isaac
From: isw on 18 Dec 2009 01:08
In article <0001HW.C74FD421004858CDB02A89BF(a)News.Individual.NET>, TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft(a)me.com> wrote: > On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:37:51 -0600, Paul Magnussen wrote (in article > <0LOdnYCwWLvAw7fWnZ2dnUVZ_oJi4p2d(a)earthlink.com>): > > > Jolly Roger wrote: > > > >> iPhoto is really is quite good at doing those basic things, IMO. > > > > But (as I understand) it won't do a lossless rotate of a JPEG, which > > GraphicConverter will. > > Just now I exported from iPhoto a horizontal and vertical version of the same > jpg image. The pixel dimensions were the same and the file sizes were within > a single percentage point of being the same. How would I know if the rotated > image was or not a lossless version of the original? Um, if you can't tell by looking (zooming,...), why does it matter? The JPEG algorithm is lossy (in some sense) to begin with; that's how it produces smaller files. Isaac |