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 13:37 In article <isw-141B1E.10180818122009@[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. > > > > why would you ever want to do that? the original file should be > > considered to be a digital negative, never to be modified, ever. > > Because I do not choose to view them that way. My "originals" are off on > a DVD somewhere, untouchable by iPhoto. that's fine, iphoto can keep a preview. > > since it tracks the changes, you always have the latest version. > > > > non-destructive editing is a feature. > > A feature which causes you to lose control of where your images really > are, and which causes your image library to grow in size every time you > make an edit. it doesn't cause a loss of control. quite the opposite, in fact. see below. > But worst of all, if at some time in the future you do not have access > to iPhoto but you do have your photo library, there's simply no way to > know which files exist as edited versions, short of poking around inside > iPhoto's library, in the "Modified" folder. My way, the latest version > is always right where I put it. although it's true that there is a reliance on an app, whether it's iphoto or lightroom or something else, manually remembering where photos are does not scale. it might work for a few thousand photos, but can you realistically remember where a particular photo out of tens of thousands of photos? more importantly, you can form queries that can't be done any other way, such as all photos with jane but not john and are on a beach, rated 3 stars or better, taken with a nikon d300 camera and a 24-70mm lens. or more realistically, all photos with jane in them, regardless of when or where they were taken. that's a helluva lot more control than you could ever hope to get using finder. > Because I do not like to lose control of where my edited images are. > Which is mostly the reason I set iPhoto up to leave my images where I > put them in the first place. I want to know where they are at all times. as noted several times, you do not have to lose control of where your images are. if you don't want iphoto to move files, just uncheck that option in preferences. it's really very simple.
From: nospam on 18 Dec 2009 13:40 In article <isw-6AE9D4.10192118122009@[216.168.3.50]>, isw <isw(a)witzend.com> wrote: > > > 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. photoshop 7???? that came out in 2002, some 7 years ago. i'm surprised it worked as long as it did. the current version is cs4, aka version 11.
From: nospam on 18 Dec 2009 13:41 In article <isw-BD7EE5.10271618122009@[216.168.3.50]>, isw <isw(a)witzend.com> wrote: > 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). wow, that's a lot of work. you do that for every file you modify??
From: Doug Anderson on 18 Dec 2009 13:51 erilar <drache(a)chibardun.net.invalid> writes: > In article <jollyroger-302D52.15400617122009(a)news.individual.net>, > Jolly Roger <jollyroger(a)pobox.com> wrote: > > > In article <drache-88E6B2.15143717122009(a)nothing.attdns.com>, > > erilar <drache(a)chibardun.net.invalid> wrote: > > > > > In article <jollyroger-9E676F.09321417122009(a)news.individual.net>, > > > Jolly Roger <jollyroger(a)pobox.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! > > > > It's not an image editor. It's a photo organizer. Use the right tool for > > the job. > > In my case, iPhoto is also a poor organizer. iPhoto's main strength (and main purpose, I believe) is in organizing your photos. If you prefer to organize them using your own naming and folder system, then it is hard to see being happy with iPhoto. Personally, I've been able to achieve much better organization with my 6000 or so photos on iPhoto than I ever would have been able to with folders. I can imagine though that if I were a professional photographer, or if photography was part of my work, I might need a different way to organize things. Certainly if I were a professional photographer, I'd need a better way to edit things. So for me at least, it is a good organizer. I'm very happy to trade the organizational structure of iPhoto for the small drawback of having to open iPhoto to easily find a picture. (If I was trying to organize my photos with folders and naming conventions, I suspect it would take me far longer to find a picture than it takes to open iPhoto.)
From: nospam on 18 Dec 2009 14:20
In article <michelle-D28080.11594218122009(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Michelle Steiner <michelle(a)michelle.org> wrote: > > the problem with iphoto is that it converts to jpeg early on, and is > > therefore destructive. > > It doesn't convert the original; therefore, it is not destructive. although you can revert to the original (and lose everything), if you make a change it's off the jpeg, not the original raw. |