Prev: 3-D font programs?
Next: iMail Rejecting Password
From: isw on 18 Dec 2009 13:09
In article <siegman-6E43D3.08111618122009(a)news.stanford.edu>,
AES <siegman(a)stanford.edu> wrote:

> 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

Yes. iPhoto supports multiple libraries (as it calls them).

> and a master catalog of all the graphics files
> on your HD?

AFAIK, if you have multiple libraries, they are totally independent
(though IF you do not allow iPhoto to manage them, but store your images
externally, then the same image can be a member of multiple libraries).

So you could certainly have two "minor" libraries which were
independent, and a "major" library which comprised all the images in
both "minor" libraries. But it sounds like what you'd like is when an
image got added to one of the "minor" ones, it automatically showed up
in the "major" one; that does not happen.

> 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?

I have a feeling that Apple did not view individuals who spend a lot of
their time looking through libraries *or* library catalogs as their main
target for iPhoto.

Isaac
From: Richard Wakeford on 18 Dec 2009 13:10
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 12:04:55 -0500, nospam wrote:

> you do realize that photoshop elements 8 is not the same as lightroom
> or aperture, right?

It's still capable of editing photos better than iPhoto and, because I've
not used Aperture or Lightroom, I just made a comment that it IS possible
to use an external app to wok with iPhoto and I happen to use Elements8. I
believe it's equally easy to set up either of the other two as external
editors.
From: Ian Gregory on 18 Dec 2009 13:10
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.sys.mac.system.]
On 2009-12-18, AES <siegman(a)stanford.edu> wrote:

> 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.

Your argument seems to be that a filesystem makes for a good general
purpose "database" system. Certainly it is a ubiquitous method of
organising files in a hierarchy, but that can be very limiting.

Take the idea of an address book for example. Why not just put vCard
files (with names like "Joe Blogs.vcf) for all your contacts into a
folder, perhaps organised into subfolders for "kin", "friends",
"enemies" etc? One obvious problem is what to with a card for an enemy
you are related to:-)

Much better to forget about shoehorning them into a directory tree and
enter them into a database - like the Address Book application. There
you can easily create groups for "kin" and "enemies" and put your
nemesis in both. Plus there is a huge amount of extra functionality you
get, and you can still export vCards if you need to.

I don't suppose there are many people who would argue with the above.

So then the question is, are music and image files best treated as
general files or is it better to organise them using custom database
type applications?

The complication is that iPhoto and iTunes are designed to act like
databases but the objects being stored (mp3s, jpegs etc) are still
actually stored as files in the filesystem. However, the apps are
designed to abstract that away - the user shouldn't have to care about
where the files are, what they are called, or even whether they are
actually stored as files at all. As long as they can stick new photos or
songs in there and easily access what they want when they want it.

I find that iTunes and iPhoto both work very efficiently and I have
never worried about what is happening behind the scenes. Of course, it
does lock you in a bit, due to the effort it would require to migrate to
and learn an alternative app should you become dissatisfied with iTunes
or iPhoto - but that hasn't happened for me.

Ian

--
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/
From: Steve Hix on 18 Dec 2009 13:10
In article <181220090117053946%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>,
nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <isw-CD1D10.22043217122009@[216.168.3.50]>, isw
> <isw(a)witzend.com> wrote:
>
> > > 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...
>
> write the metadata into the file using standard tags and then anything
> can read it. i don't know if iphoto supports that but other apps
> certainly do.

It does.
From: Steve Hix on 18 Dec 2009 13:13
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?

Because its a better approach to handling more than a trivial number of
things?

One might as well ask why database systems support search and query
functions.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Prev: 3-D font programs?
Next: iMail Rejecting Password