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: Doug Anderson on 18 Dec 2009 14:30 isw <isw(a)witzend.com> writes: > 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). Some of these posts seem to be magical in ways I don't understand. You don't want to close iPhoto, but you don't want to see it. But you "don't like" using the yellow button. Here it would seem like a very easy way to do exactly what you want to do. No? (My solution to this is Spaces, by the way, but I understand not everyone finds Spaces as useful as I do.) > 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. I agree, it would be nice to be able to open an album in a second window. (You can open an "Event" in a second window, but I don't really use "Events".)
From: Andy Hewitt on 18 Dec 2009 14:37 nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <1jaxly9.1sitfwy2x1h5nN%thewildrover(a)me.com>, Andy Hewitt > <thewildrover(a)me.com> wrote: > > > 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." > > that doesn't say anything about raw. what iphoto does is make a jpeg > when you import. however, there does seem to be conflicting information > whether the *first* edit is on the raw or on the converted jpeg. if you > ever make a change, it's on the jpeg. Have you got any references for that? > > > 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. > > aperture and lightroom are *always* working off the raw. the jpeg > preview is *only* for speed on screen. Correct. They are also used for the Media browsers in other Apple applications, such as Pages or iWeb, and to use the same images in iPhoto. > any adjustments made will update > the change list that is applied to the raw and the preview will be > regenerated. Yes, if you have Previews turned on, but you *can* turn off Previews, and have Aperture apply all the edits to the Raw file each time you view it. Of course Thumbnails are still created for viewing in the 'Browser' view. > when you actually want to do something with an image, such as print, > email, make a book, etc., the image is exported after applying all > adjustments for that particular image. Correct. -- Andy Hewitt <http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/>
From: nospam on 18 Dec 2009 14:39 In article <nhxi4vskwljh.6jfu8k8en24e$.dlg(a)40tude.net>, Richard Wakeford <rwakefordfortynine(a)gmail.com> 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 nobody said otherwise. > 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. using an external app is not the issue. lightroom and aperture are not designed to edit an image and save it back so the calling application can then use it. photoshop is, and that's why it can be used with iphoto (or lightroom or aperture).
From: nospam on 18 Dec 2009 14:39 In article <hggi2p$u0n$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, John McWilliams <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > 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. many raw processors take the raw and output a jpeg, tiff, etc. the advantage of lightroom and aperture is that they do that on the fly and you can go back and make a change without needing to make a whole new file. here's an example: with a traditional raw processor, you would take the raw, make a jpeg or tiff, and then maybe open it in photoshop and retouch it, crop it, remove a tree, etc. if you decide that the white balance is not quite right or you want a different cropping, you basically have to start all over again, from scratch. if you want multiple versions, you need to have multiple files, and if you later make a change to one that you want in the rest you have to somehow re-apply it to each one (and hope that it's the same if it's a retouching operation). with non-destructive editing, you could go back and adjust the white balance, exposure, etc., without affecting the retouching or cropping. you can change the crop at any time. multiple versions are nothing more than a different set of instructions which take up a few kilobytes rather than many megabytes. you can even copy/paste adjustments from one image to another (or set of images).
From: nospam on 18 Dec 2009 14:45
In article <1jaxq8v.nfwez518kiw5cN%thewildrover(a)me.com>, Andy Hewitt <thewildrover(a)me.com> wrote: > > > 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." > > > > that doesn't say anything about raw. what iphoto does is make a jpeg > > when you import. however, there does seem to be conflicting information > > whether the *first* edit is on the raw or on the converted jpeg. if you > > ever make a change, it's on the jpeg. > > Have you got any references for that? this is about iphoto 5, but the modification date is april 2009. i can't find anything for anything more recent. <http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2297#one> The first time you edit a RAW image in the main iPhoto window, the RAW badge appears at the bottom of the window. It looks like this: When the badge appears, iPhoto is using your image's original RAW data to support your edits. After you click Done, your changes are applied to the RAW image data and stored as a JPEG file (the original RAW file remains unchanged). That's how iPhoto simplifies the RAW workflow�it combines RAW editing and JPEG conversion into one step. but a few lines later, it contradicts that by saying: That's why iPhoto makes a JPEG copy of your RAW image at the time of import. |