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: isw on 18 Dec 2009 17:34 In article <jollyroger-47C3E1.12282418122009(a)news.individual.net>, Jolly Roger <jollyroger(a)pobox.com> wrote: > 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. Not so; I'm happy enough with it *now that I understand how to keep it from thwarting what I want to do*. It really is good at organizing a large collection of images, IMO. I do wish it didn't get so nasty when it runs across an image with a color profile it doesn't understand, though. Or crashes predictably every time the result of that failure to understand (a black thumbnail) is trashed and the trash emptied. Isaac
From: nospam on 18 Dec 2009 17:55 In article <isw-8F3B44.14295618122009@[216.168.3.50]>, isw <isw(a)witzend.com> wrote: > > > 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. so what? iphoto will access it for you, or lightroom or whatever other app. > And later on it's not at all obvious that the image iPhoto > is showing you is NOT the original. it's showing the most recent version. if you made a change, why would you want to see the original and not the changed version? in lightroom (which i use far more than iphoto), small icon badges indicate if the image has had any modifications and you can toggle between the original and current version at any time. > > > 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. exactly my point. that's why having an app do the database management is *much* better. > 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. but that stringent hierarchy and hopefully obvious name is very limiting and does not scale. and what if the name isn't that obvious? do your file names have every tidbit of detail, such as names, subject matter, location, camera/lens, date/time, etc.? > 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. that's not really a lot of photos, but if your system works for you, that's great. it's just that having an application manage all the details is *much* more powerful than doing it manually. > 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?" it wasn't really designed to be used that way.
From: erilar on 18 Dec 2009 18:18 In article <181220091340328082%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > 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. Luddite speaking: the one on my computer is 6. That says something about how long ago I quit using it. It's still here because some fotos are in it and I'm not sure I also have all of them where they belong. -- Erilar, biblioholic medievalist http://www.chibardun.net/~erilarlo
From: erilar on 18 Dec 2009 18:20 In article <181220091318570430%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <michelle-DCA8CC.10541718122009(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > Michelle Steiner <michelle(a)michelle.org> wrote: > > > > > So you set the external app to Lightroom or Aperture. > > > > > > that won't work. > > > > Why? > > because the way round-tripping to an external editor works is by > creating a intermediate file which the external editor modifies and the > changes are then saved back to the file. the originating application > then tracks that new file. > > lightroom and aperture don't 'save' a file the way that photoshop or > other image editor does. they're a combination asset management, image > editor and webpage/print/book/etc. creation utility. the original image > is not modified, and it creates jpegs, tiffs, etc, based on various > settings. you can't just give it an file and get back a result saved to > that same file. I just rename the fotos slightly--add a "b" or "c" to the number. -- Erilar, biblioholic medievalist http://www.chibardun.net/~erilarlo
From: erilar on 18 Dec 2009 18:25
In article <jollyroger-974D11.22503417122009(a)news.individual.net>, Jolly Roger <jollyroger(a)pobox.com> wrote: > In article <hgemlt$78i$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > Wes Groleau <Groleau+news(a)FreeShell.org> wrote: > > > AES wrote: > > (in defense of Finder as a better organizer than iTunes or iPhoto) > > > The key aspect of my use of a Mac laptop as the core of my personal and > > > professional life is precisely a file/folder structure which organizes > > > all the varying topics (professional projects, hobbies, interests) in > > > which I'm interested -- a structure which I've created myself, so that I > > > therefore know exactly how its organized. > > > > I have to agree. iTunes insists that artists have albums and albums > > have songs. Want to keep several versions of the same song together? > > Nope. Several artists collaborate on an album? Pick ONE. > > Couldn't you just as well use the Grouping and Composer fields, or > playlists, for that? I do strange things to "genre" so I get different combinations on my iPod. Example: I have one playlist labeled "Classical" but within it the "genre" specifies violin, piano, flute, cello, etc. -- Erilar, biblioholic medievalist http://www.chibardun.net/~erilarlo |