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 23:03 In article <2rk4wk9ku9.fsf(a)ethel.the.log>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Except that, as has been discussed, it's easy to have both at once. Isaac
From: isw on 18 Dec 2009 23:11 In article <sehix-87F0BC.10075018122009(a)nntp.aioe.org>, Steve Hix <sehix(a)NOSPAMmac.comINVALID> wrote: > In article <isw-CD1D10.22043217122009@[216.168.3.50]>, > isw <isw(a)witzend.com> wrote: > > > In article <171220092132311911%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>, > > nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > > > > > In article <hgenvp$h29$1(a)news.albasani.net>, AV3 > > > <arvimide(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > How is iPhoto a poor organizer, exactly, in your opinion? > > > > > > > > In my opinion, its big problem is how to find a particular picture on > > > > the hard disk. You assign a name to the picture and put it in an album, > > > > but iPhoto stores it in a particular year under a code name. I have > > > > family pictures (for instance) of individuals from every year of my > > > > catalogue, so finding an individual picture depends not on searching > > > > but > > > > on opening iPhoto and (in effect) finding the original of an alias. I > > > > would prefer to be able to search directly by my own criteria. > > > > > > that's what keywords are for! > > > > > > give the photo a bunch of keywords and you can find all related photos, > > > regardless of what folder they live in. for your family photos, use the > > > names of the people for keywords (and/or the locations), or just let > > > iphoto's faces (and places) handle it. > > > > > > folders are very restrictive and do not scale. that's why so many apps > > > (not just iphoto) are breaking away from it. > > > > 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... > > You could sort on keyword(s), and export the pictures to wherever you > want in any of a number of file formats. > > And your originals are still untouched. But you can only do that if *at the time you need to do it* you have access to both a Mac and iPhoto. My way is to do that *before the need arises*, and then use iPhoto as a sort of "rummaging and presentation" mechanism, which it does very nicely. If all you had was a DVD with your iPhoto library on it, and, say, a Linux box, what would you do? My images would be organized in a simple, but accessible, directory structure. If you trusted iPhoto, yours would be a mess. Isaac
From: isw on 18 Dec 2009 23:57 In article <181220091755102620%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > 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. As I've said in other postings, that is true *only if you have a Mac and a copy of iPhoto. If all you have is a Linux box and a disk with your iPhoto library on it, then what? > > 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? It's showing the most recent version, which is probably what I want, but *it's not where I put it* (the original, that is). What I'm viewing is buried somewhere in the bowels of the iPhoto library, and *that* is what I don't like. > 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. *If you have access to that database program*, I agree. > > 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.? I do the best I can to make some sort of *permanent* organization, which is a lot more than iPhoto does. It's "organization" is totally dependent on the existence of that database (in uncorrupted format), and a running instance of iPhoto. > > 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. Again, IF you can depend on that app being around *for as long as the images have value* (even personal value), then you are correct. Do you seriously think that Macs running "OS X 25.7 Snarling Wombat" will be available at the end of your kids' lifetimes, and that it will be able to run iPhoto? I have a high degree of confidence that apps will still be available then, on whatever passes for computers, the will be able to handle files containing JPGs. > > 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. I don't care what tools are "designed to do"; all I care about is if they can be coerced into doing what *I* want them to do. Isaac
From: isw on 19 Dec 2009 00:00 In article <hghet8$tus$1(a)news.albasani.net>, AV3 <arvimide(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > On Dec/18/2009 3:3257 PM, AES wrote: > > In article<isw-8B61D9.09513918122009@[216.168.3.50]>, > > isw<isw(a)witzend.com> wrote: > > > >> > >>> Note that I originally said that my objection concerned searching on the > >>> hard disk and that iTunes made such a search easier by naming its files > >>> according to artist and album name. > >> > > > > How does one apply that to seminars or lectures or lecture series, where > > you might in fact want to name some of the files by the speaker; some by > > the topic; some by the series? > > > You are right that photos have more factors of identification than a > single sound file. But, if I decide on one keyword to identify the > picture, it would be helpful to have the originals identified by that > keyword together. For instance, I wanted to upload a couple of dozen > family photos to a geneology site, but I had to upload them one by one, > since they were scattered around by the multifarious dates when they > were taken. Had they been available in iPhoto, it would have been trivial to upload them in one go. One way would be to create a temporary album, drag them all in, and then export the album. Isaac
From: isw on 19 Dec 2009 00:03
In article <hghefs$th8$1(a)news.albasani.net>, AV3 <arvimide(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > On Dec/18/2009 11:4527 AM, nospam wrote: > > In article<hgg943$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. > > > > > I use iPhoto once or twice a month. I don't need it to be ready every day. > > > >> I wish the photo was > >> filed under the title I gave it, so I could just find it on the hard > >> disk by that title. > > > > your photos can be any title you want it to be and in any folder you > > want. iphoto doesn't care. > > > > > I should have been more specific. I was talking about the originals. So was I. > For > instance, I wanted to upload a number of family photos to a geneology > site, but I couldn't use the "alias" in iPhoto, I'm not sure what you're referring to, here... > I had to find each > original photo in its actual hard disk location one by one. Finding > imported iTunes files is a lot easier, if I want to send one to a friend. As somebody else already said, iPhoto makes that trivially easy. Isaac |