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 12:36 In article <1jaxjdc.182h3ll1q13mynN%thewildrover(a)me.com>, Andy Hewitt <thewildrover(a)me.com> 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. > > That's not actually correct. > > It applies adjustments to the Raw image, and creates a JPG preview based > on that. Each time you re-edit, it will make a new JPG preview image. no it doesn't. once it's jpeg, the raw is excess baggage unless you revert to original, discarding *everything*. however, it does appear that the very first edit is on the raw. any subsequent edit, no matter how slight, is on the jpeg. with lightroom or aperture, you are *always* working from the raw. the only time you have a jpeg (or other format) is when you export to another app, email, make a book or web page, etc.
From: isw on 18 Dec 2009 12:39 In article <C750879E.48163F%bobhaar(a)me.com>, Robert Haar <bobhaar(a)me.com> wrote: > On 12/18/09 1:11 AM, "isw" <isw(a)witzend.com> wrote: > > > It would be very nice if, when you were looking at a particular image in > > a certain album, you could say "Show me all the albums this image in." > > > That does sound useful. Have you submitted a suggestion for this? Actually, I have a sort-of-hacked AppleScript that does it, but it's very slow, and I'm not sure how it would work for others. (I am not an AppleScript expert and I do not play one on TV). Isaac
From: isw on 18 Dec 2009 12:44 In article <siegman-CD364E.08282618122009(a)news.stanford.edu>, AES <siegman(a)stanford.edu> wrote: > 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. How do you handle files that belong in more than one place? Say, a photo of both Churchill and Roosevelt, when you have folder structures dedicated to both? Isaac
From: isw on 18 Dec 2009 12:51 In article <hgg943$uqe$1(a)news.albasani.net>, AV3 <arvimide(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > On Dec/18/2009 12:5926 AM, isw wrote: > > In article<hgenvp$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. Well, that is precisely how I name and organize my photos, and I still use iPhoto to manage them. > 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. I had a few hundred images on the Mac before iPhoto came along, too, which is why I figured out how to make it leave my files where I had put them. > 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. If you can remember the name of a file, you can let Finder get it pretty quickly, but if you can't, then scrolling through images with iPhoto and clicking to locate it is pretty fast. Plus, for doing things like attaching images to email (with scaling to fit), iPhoto has Finder beat all hollow. Isaac
From: isw on 18 Dec 2009 12:57
In article <181220091145278518%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <hgg943$uqe$1(a)news.albasani.net>, AV3 > <arvimide(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > > > 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. > > leave it running. Well, that brings up an annoying "feature" of iPhoto; it's one of those apps that automatically quits when you close its window. So leaving it running means always having to look at it (yes, I know about the yellow button; I don't like doing that). Which reminds me of another of its "features", that you cannot have more than one window open at the time. Most apps allow you to have multiple documents open (in iPhoto, multiple libraries), and even allow you to have two instances of the same document open simultaneously. That would be handy for organizing and managing images, and which albums they are members of. Isaac |