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: AV3 on 18 Dec 2009 11:03 On Dec/18/2009 12:5926 AM, isw wrote: > 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? > No, I'm saying that opening iPhoto to search for the individual photo is one step more than I would like to have to take. I wish the photo was filed under the title I gave it, so I could just find it on the hard disk by that title. I could have given each photo a keyword identical to its name at the time I named it, but by now I have more than a thousand photos to go back and assign each its keyword/name. Note that I originally said that my objection concerned searching on the hard disk and that iTunes made such a search easier by naming its files according to artist and album name. -- ++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++ ||Arnold VICTOR, New York City, i. e., <arvimideQ(a)Wearthlink.net> || ||Arnoldo VIKTORO, Nov-jorkurbo, t. e., <arvimideQ(a)Wearthlink.net> || ||Remove capital letters from e-mail address for correct address/ || || Forigu majusklajn literojn el e-poŝta adreso por ĝusta adreso || ++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++
From: AES on 18 Dec 2009 11:11 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. 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. > Can one have multiple, independent (differently named) iPhoto catalogs -- for example smaller catalogs of the graphics files in certain folders or nested folder trees, and a master catalog of all the graphics files on your HD? P.S. -- The string "catalog" does not appear _anywhere_ in the 30-page Getting Starting document for iPhoto; and yields zero hits in iPhoto Help -- and ditto for iTunes. Seems to me this can't be just accidental; it has to be a sternly enforced Apple policy. So, why is Apple determined to, not just muddy, but apparently destroy the long-standing distinction between a "library" and a "library catalog"? Our language, our public discourse, and our ability to use meaningful words deteriorates fast enough, pushed by the journalistic (and political) standards of the day. Why is Apple aggressively pushing this particular example of this deterioration?
From: AES on 18 Dec 2009 11:28 In article <isw-881AE7.21592617122009@[216.168.3.50]>, isw <isw(a)witzend.com> wrote: > 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? Why should I have to _search_ at all, in either case? If I have _all_ my Churchill-related files (fotos, images, graphics, audio files, text files, videos, weblocs, PDFs, etc) in subfolders in a folder tree with a Churchill label at the top (cf. earlier post), I can: * Instantly _see_ everything I have on that topic; * Instantly grab, access, move, open, or edit anything and everything I have on that topic, straight from the Finder; * Instantly back up everything I have on that topic, in one shot; * Instantly write a CD containing everything I have on that topic (maybe to send to a colleague); * And instantly dump new or in coming content into that structure any time I create it (using some app) or encounter it (on the web, in an incoming email, from a scanner); All this using nothing but the Finder and the Desktop -- which any Mac user needs to understand and use anyway; which are superb tools for this purpose; and which are long-term stable and have a long-term stable interface. The model that Apple has adopted for iTunes and iPhoto is unhelpful, unnecessary, and even actively destructive -- and, of course, immensely popular. Sad.
From: nospam on 18 Dec 2009 11:45 In article <michelle-146BB5.08145718122009(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Michelle Steiner <michelle(a)michelle.org> wrote: > > > 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. > > So you set the external app to Lightroom or Aperture. that won't work.
From: nospam on 18 Dec 2009 11:45
In article <michelle-751E3B.08231018122009(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Michelle Steiner <michelle(a)michelle.org> wrote: > But how does iPhoto not support raw? because iphoto makes a default conversion to jpeg and all the adjustments are then done on the jpeg, not on the raw. you can make a default conversion to jpeg in the camera, and likely a better one since the camera maker knows more about the sensor than apple does, assuming apple even gets around to supporting the camera. it took them 5 months for the nikon d300s & d3000, for instance. |