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 13:23 In article <isw-603693.09572918122009@[216.168.3.50]>, isw <isw(a)witzend.com> 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). you can also hide it. are you also annoyed that you need to launch itunes to find a song? or launch address book to find a name/phone number? or launch an email app to find an email? > 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. most people don't have multiple libraries, let alone want to have two open at once. it's very easy to split up the photos within one library, and because one image can be in multiple categories, it's significantly more flexible.
From: Jolly Roger on 18 Dec 2009 13:26 In article <isw-6AE9D4.10192118122009@[216.168.3.50]>, isw <isw(a)witzend.com> wrote: > In article <181220090056058338%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>, > nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > > > 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. > > Version 7; and it most certainly broke. Old or not, it's what I had, and > it did everything I wanted to do. Until it didn't. : D -- Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts. JR
From: isw on 18 Dec 2009 13:27 In article <C7508648.481625%bobhaar(a)me.com>, Robert Haar <bobhaar(a)me.com> wrote: > On 12/18/09 12:46 AM, "isw" <isw(a)witzend.com> wrote: > > > In article <C74FD9C5.4813B8%bobhaar(a)me.com>, > > Robert Haar <bobhaar(a)me.com> wrote: > > > >> On 12/17/09 10:01 AM, "Ant" <ant(a)zimage.comANT> wrote: > >> > >>> On 12/17/2009 1:35 AM PT, Calum typed: > >>> > >>>> On 17/12/09 07:29, Ant wrote: > >>>>> Hello! > >>>>> > >>>>> One of my clients does not like Apple Mac OS X 10.5.7's iPhoto which is > >>>>> limited and confusing to him. He doesn't like how albums, layouts, etc. > >>>>> work. We would like to know if there are better softwares (freeware if > >>>>> possible) to handle digital pictures/photographs on a MacBook Pro. > >> > >>>> > >>>> However, without knowing how many photos your client has, what he wants > >>>> to do with them, what he doesn't like about iPhoto, and how he'd prefer > >>>> things to work, it's hard to recommend any alternatives, free or > >>>> otherwise. > >>>> > >>>> (It's also worth noting that iPhoto is deliberatly somewhat 'limited' > >>>> because it has a big brother in the Apple stable, Aperture, that's aimed > >>>> more at the professional market.) > >>> > >>> He does basic stuff like importing/copying photographs/photos. from his > >>> digital cameras, keep them in his HDDs, view them, share/upload via > >>> e-mails and in person, organize, crop/resize, etc. Just basic stuff. > >> > >> That is precisely what I use iPhoto for and works quite well IMO. My photo > >> collection contains about 13,000 images so it certainly scaled for casual > >> use. > >> > >> As Calum indicated, Aperture is a step up, aimed at the professional user. > >> I > >> like its workflow for raw processing but I prefer the usability of iPhoto > >> and start there for almost all tasks. > >> > >> Iphoto, like many Apple products has its own terminology. But once you get > >> you head around the concepts, it is fairly powerful. The key part of this > >> is > >> that all the organizing and cataloging is done within iPhoto. Don't create > >> file/folder structures outside of iPhoto and expect iPhoto to honor that > >> structure. > > > > Of course it will, if you tell it to leave the images where you put them > > -- Preferences/Advanced/UNcheck "Copy files to iPhoto Library...". > > > > Then create whatever kind of folder structure you please, put your > > photos in them as you please, and *only then* tell iPhoto about them. It > > will never move a one of them. > > > If you edit one of the photos,where does the edited version go? As I mentioned in another post, that is one of iPhoto's "features" that I really do not care for. Here's what I do: IF I edit from within iPhoto, after I'm done, I reach into the "Modified" folder in iPhoto's library, get the edited version, and drag it to where the original was stored, replacing it. Then I select the image from within iPhoto and tell it "Revert to Original" (which is actually the edited version). Alternately (and I *think* this is true; I've done it a few times), if you just ignore iPhoto and grab the original and hand it to GIMP or Photoshop, then the edited version will replace the original and iPhoto will never know the difference. Although the thumbnails will be of the old version until you do a rebuild. Note: *This only works with an external library*. > I have yet to find any organizing need that iPhoto does not support easily. I agree. I value iPhoto for its organizational abilities. Isaac
From: Jolly Roger on 18 Dec 2009 13:28 In article <isw-141B1E.10180818122009@[216.168.3.50]>, isw <isw(a)witzend.com> wrote: > Because I do not like to lose control It seems that pretty much sums up the core reason why most every person I've observed refuses to use iPhoto. -- Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts. JR
From: John McWilliams on 18 Dec 2009 13:36
Steve Hix wrote: > In article <1jaxjdc.182h3ll1q13mynN%thewildrover(a)me.com>, > thewildrover(a)me.com (Andy Hewitt) wrote: > >> nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >> >>> 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. >> That's not actually correct. >> >> It applies adjustments to the Raw image, > > Even better, it builds a list of operations to be done to create an > output file based on the RAW image; the RAW file itself is never touched. I believe that's the case with all RAW processors; the file itself is not altered; only the instructions on how to process out a JPEG, TIFF, PSD file are changed. -- john mcwilliams [Lightroom user] |