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: erilar on 18 Dec 2009 19:37 In article <isw-CD1D10.22043217122009@[216.168.3.50]>, isw <isw(a)witzend.com> wrote: > I do agree, but one of the things I'm doing is organizing a *bunch* of > old family photos, to pass on to my kids. As long as they have Macs > *that support iPhoto*, things will work fine, but *what do you do in a > Macless world* - say, towards the end of the kids' lifetimes? Me, I > can't think of anything better than giving the image files significant > names, and organizing them into folders. It'll be a long, long time > before there are no JPEG viewers... There are already people who either don't have iPhoto or else don't have the latest version. I'm one of the latter, as I no longer use it. A friend sent me a CD with an iPhoto slide show. I couldn't open it. I used another program to pluck out the .jpegs and looked at the fotos that way, but I couldn't watch the CD. -- Erilar, biblioholic medievalist http://www.chibardun.net/~erilarlo
From: Doug Anderson on 18 Dec 2009 19:38 erilar <drache(a)chibardun.net.invalid> writes: > In article <jollyroger-204C71.22253317122009(a)news.individual.net>, > Jolly Roger <jollyroger(a)pobox.com> wrote: > > > There's no need to find the file on disk. Open iPhoto, search for the > > image you want (by name, keywords, date, whatever), then drag it out (or > > share it via email, etc.). Done deal. > > Do all the iPhoto fans NAME their fotos? No, but if you do, you can use that. > Mine have numbers assigned by > my camera. Mine too.
From: AES on 18 Dec 2009 20:51 In article <9t8wczq5x9.fsf(a)ethel.the.log>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > 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). > I think this actually illustrates remarkably well the point I've been making. Suppose Apple actually provided a "library" app (iBooks?) that operated in the same general way as the default mode of iTunes or iPhoto? UPS would deliver a book, or books, that you'd ordered from amazon. Following the same default mode as when you insert a CD into your laptop, or connect a camera to the USB port on your laptop, or download an iTune order online, or stick an SD card reader into your computer's USB port, a robot hand would reach out through an input slot on the front of the big cabinet or storeroom where iBooks lived and grab the package, as it arrived. iBooks would then open and unpack your package; pull out the books; log 'em in; rename 'em all to some obscure names; and pack 'em off to storage slots in an complex shelving and layered boxing system which iBooks itself, not you, determined. If you wanted to get at any of these books, or even get a list of what was on those shelves, you'd have to fire up a LCD display panel on the front of the iBooks cave, scroll around, mess with the interface, and eventually get the iBooks to hand one or another of the books out the slot in front (or maybe it would only read the book to you, or only show it to you on the LCS panel). I happen to want to organize my audio files and graphics files just like you organize your books: in the fashion _I_ want them organized, also known as idiosyncratically!! Can be done with iTunes or iPhoto, but it's not the default mode that iTunes especially wants to operate in -- you have to fight to do it your way.
From: Doug Anderson on 18 Dec 2009 21:02 AES <siegman(a)stanford.edu> writes: > In article <9t8wczq5x9.fsf(a)ethel.the.log>, > Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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). > > > > I think this actually illustrates remarkably well the point I've been > making. > > Suppose Apple actually provided a "library" app (iBooks?) that operated > in the same general way as the default mode of iTunes or iPhoto? I'm not sure what your point actually is. iTunes would be a very effective way of storing books. I could order and find the book by title, author, or genre, which is what I generally want. Photos are different. I'm the "author" of most of my thousands of photos. Very few of them even _have_ titles. And the "genre" is quite difficult to figure out. If all of your photos (like books) have authors, titles and genres, and that is how you intend to access them, then iPhoto may be the wrong organizational tool for you. For most of the rest of us, whether we are literate or not, and whether we regularly use libraries or not, organizing our photos by genre, author and title isn't useful. > UPS would deliver a book, or books, that you'd ordered from amazon. > Following the same default mode as when you insert a CD into your > laptop, or connect a camera to the USB port on your laptop, or download > an iTune order online, or stick an SD card reader into your computer's > USB port, a robot hand would reach out through an input slot on the > front of the big cabinet or storeroom where iBooks lived and grab the > package, as it arrived. > > iBooks would then open and unpack your package; pull out the books; log > 'em in; rename 'em all to some obscure names; and pack 'em off to > storage slots in an complex shelving and layered boxing system which > iBooks itself, not you, determined. Yeah, that would be lousy. If I was lucky though, iBooks would work like iTunes, not like the concept you just invented. Then I'd be all set, and my books would be better organized and more accessible to me than they are now. > If you wanted to get at any of these books, or even get a list of what > was on those shelves, you'd have to fire up a LCD display panel on the > front of the iBooks cave, scroll around, mess with the interface, and > eventually get the iBooks to hand one or another of the books out the > slot in front (or maybe it would only read the book to you, or only show > it to you on the LCS panel). > > I happen to want to organize my audio files and graphics files just like > you organize your books: in the fashion _I_ want them organized, also > known as idiosyncratically!! Can be done with iTunes or iPhoto, but > it's not the default mode that iTunes especially wants to operate in -- > you have to fight to do it your way. That makes perfect sense then - you shouldn't use iPhoto - it is an organizational tool which is much more useful for me (and I daresay the average user) than it is for you. If I organized my photos as idiosyncratically as I've organized my books, I could never find what I wanted. iPhoto allows me to search by date taken, by location taken, by people in the photo, by keywords I've associated to them, etc. I find that much more useful than anything I've though out myself (at least so far).
From: nospam on 18 Dec 2009 21:18
In article <drache-C7E256.18323318122009(a)news.eternal-september.org>, erilar <drache(a)chibardun.net.invalid> wrote: > Do all the iPhoto fans NAME their fotos? Mine have numbers assigned by > my camera. you can remember what photo number 2332 is? how about 4227? what about 3334 versus 3335? which one was the better shot? people who use iphoto, aperture, lightroom and similar apps add keywords and/or categorize images in collections or events (the name varies) so that it's very easy to find images of a particular subject or person. they can also rate images or mark them as rejects (and won't be displayed unless specifically requested). the actual file on disk retains its original name. there is also a file browser (in lightroom and aperture) for those who want to browse by the hierarchy on disk, in addition to the other methods. |