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: Andy Hewitt on 18 Dec 2009 17:03 nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <1jaxtz5.120v2hj15fu11jN%thewildrover(a)me.com>, Andy Hewitt > <thewildrover(a)me.com> wrote: [..] > > In all cases though, the original (or master) image is never directly > > edited. Indeed, no software can directly edit a Raw file anyway, they > > *all* have to convert it to a standard format at some point. > > not entirely true. nikon's software, for instance, can modify metadata > contained in the raw file so you can 'edit' the raw and next time you > open the raw file, those settings are applied. personally, i prefer to > have that data in sidecar files and leave the raw untouched. Blimey, I agree there, I want *nothing* to be changing my original image files. -- Andy Hewitt <http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/>
From: isw on 18 Dec 2009 17:13 In article <181220091341522893%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > 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?? No. Mostly, I edit the images before iPhoto ever sees them. Once in a while, however, I see something while looking at an image that I want to fix. Even then, usually I take the route of just opening the file directly with GIMP; that's no more (or less) trouble, because it's just editing the file. Isaac
From: isw on 18 Dec 2009 17:16 In article <jollyroger-530BCE.12264418122009(a)news.individual.net>, Jolly Roger <jollyroger(a)pobox.com> wrote: > 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 Yeah. But GIMP is OK; not the same, and lacking in some features I'd like to have (LAB color space, for one), but the price is right. If I really, really, need PS, I've got Tiger on an external bootable disk. Isaac
From: Doug Anderson on 18 Dec 2009 17:21 AES <siegman(a)stanford.edu> writes: > In article <isw-EF27FC.10092618122009@[216.168.3.50]>, > isw <isw(a)witzend.com> wrote: > > > > > 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 > > Absolutely agree with that. That's the sad part of the situation, for > iPhoto and iTunes. Sad when a company that once developed superb > hardware and software for people who read, and know what a library is, > now perceive their primary customer base to be people who don't. I don't believe there is a basis to say this. know what a library is, and spend a fair amount of time using one. At home I have my own collection of books. They are smaller, and arranged much more randomly and idiosyncratically than a library would be arranged. I don't use LC, Dewey decimal, or any other cataloging system, though there are some general principles (which include type of book and size of book, but not color of book). Then I have my picture collection. I'm not a professional photographer, nor do I use photagraphy as a tool in my profession. I'm an amateur who likes having and looking at pictures of people, places and things that have meaning to me. iPhoto is a great tool for me to organize those pictures so that I can find a picture (or a category of picture) that I'm looking for quickly. It isn't analogous to a public library with a catolog - in fact looking through a bunch of catalog entries would be _slower_ than skimming through some pictures (and both are slower than either remembering a person in a picture, the place it was taken, or the approximate date it was taken). > (Not to mention that a primary design criterion for some of that > software becomes the enforcement of DRM.) What has this to do with iPhoto? > > Anyone on this group old enough to remember when Steve Jobs, as chairman > of Apple Computer, recruited John Sculley from Pepsi to Apple, reputedly > by asking him: > > "Do you want a chance to change the world? -- or do you want > to spend the rest of your life selling sugared water?"
From: isw on 18 Dec 2009 17:29
In article <181220091337105958%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > 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. Of course you lose control. After you edit an image within iPhoto, the edited version is stored *within the iPhoto library*, not where you put the original. And later on it's not at all obvious that the image iPhoto is showing you is NOT the original. > > 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? Of course not. That is precisely why they are nor randomly tossed onto a disk (which iPhoto will happily do *if you let it*), but are in a fairly stringent heirarchy of folders, each, like the image files, having a (hopefully) obvious name. Besides, after a lifetime of photography, I'm only up to around 5,000 images; I certainly do not expect to double that number, ever. > > 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. I'm perfectly aware of that. It is specifically why I set iPhoto up that way when I started using it. And, as I said above, it is also why I don't care for the way iPhoto handles edited images, stashing them off in its own place, with no obvious record of what it's done. Letting edits happen that way means specifically that if you *export* images from iPhoto, you'll wind up with edited versions, but if you just copy the files from your external image library, you'll get the originals, and in neither case will *any* sort of message pop up to say "You know, there's a different version of this photo; which one do you want?" Isaac |