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: MC on 18 Dec 2009 12:59 In article <hgelna$pvv$3(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Wes Groleau <Groleau+news(a)FreeShell.org> wrote: > GC is a much better editor than I need. However, it's no better than > iPhoto for organizing. I organize using the Finder filing capabilities. I create folders and subfolders and put graphics files or aliases into them, then use Graphic Converter to browse the files... -- "If you can, tell me something happy." - Marybones
From: Andy Hewitt on 18 Dec 2009 13:01 nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > 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. From the iPhoto manual: "When you reopen your edited photo to view or do more work, iPhoto then reapplies those edits to the original version. You see where you left off, so you can make incremental changes from there." > 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. Not completely. Aperture also creates a JPG Preview image, which is also recreated if you make any changes to the edits. You can of course turn off Previews in Aperture, it will then apply the edits real-time to the original, but that can slow things up, and may not necessarily result in a better image on screen. -- Andy Hewitt <http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/>
From: nospam on 18 Dec 2009 13:03 In article <michelle-DA8943.10530918122009(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. > > To me, that is a good thing. The RAW file is akin to a negative; I don't > want it messed with. I want to keep my original file pristine. it's not messed with. lightroom and aperture maintain a list of changes done to the raw and apply them when needed. the raw is never touched. you can undo or change any of the steps, even re-crop an image after the fact. if you change the colour balance or exposure, it just updates the parameters in the raw conversion. it's completely non-destructive. you can even have multiple versions of one image without needing to have duplicate images - it just keeps a different set of adjustments. it's a virtual copy. the problem with iphoto is that it converts to jpeg early on, and is therefore destructive.
From: Steve Hix on 18 Dec 2009 13:05 In article <181220090016251953%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <sehix-08A9BB.21090717122009(a)nntp.aioe.org>, Steve Hix > <sehix(a)NOSPAMmac.comINVALID> wrote: > > > > personally, i prefer lightroom over iphoto. it's *far* more flexible > > > and unlike iphoto, actually supports raw. aperture is also good and > > > does support raw, but apple is extremely slow in supporting new > > > cameras. adobe is at least on the ball about updates. > > > > I've gotten around that problem, at least until Apple caught up with my > > camera, by converting RAW to DNG with Adobe's converter. Aperture will > > read DNG (RAW DNG, not Linear DNG). > > as i recall, aperture offers additional capabilities when importing dng > if the original camera is supported in osx, versus dng from a camera > that isn't supported natively. having switched to lightroom, i don't > remember the details though. Likely so, but I don't recall that they were any functions I use much, or at all. But the e30 is supported now, and I'm not having to do the conversion. I'm *really* looking forward to Aperture 3, whenever it comes out.
From: Steve Hix on 18 Dec 2009 13:07
In article <isw-CD1D10.22043217122009@[216.168.3.50]>, isw <isw(a)witzend.com> wrote: > 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 You could sort on keyword(s), and export the pictures to wherever you want in any of a number of file formats. And your originals are still untouched. |