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 19 Dec 2009 11:38 In article <isw-B2D29C.21192118122009@[216.168.3.50]>, isw <isw(a)witzend.com> wrote: > To the best of my ability to figure it out, if your music collection is > nearly all "classical", iTunes is totally incapable of managing it by > itself. I use an external structure of directories and subdirectories > there, too. And it only barely works. 8-) No, only about 2.5 gb is "classical". I have almost that much "medieval", 3 gb of "folk", and several smaller playlists, such as "jazz", "harp", "Xmas", "guitar, etc", and others. The majority of the not-yet-converted LPs are classical, some more folk music, and miscellany 8-) Since I listen to my iPod more than to my computer, the additional choices of genre, album, artist, composer give me a nice choice of options. -- Erilar, biblioholic medievalist http://www.chibardun.net/~erilarlo
From: Doug Anderson on 19 Dec 2009 12:03 isw <isw(a)witzend.com> writes: > In article <drache-6C85CB.17250918122009(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > erilar <drache(a)chibardun.net.invalid> wrote: > > > 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. > > To the best of my ability to figure it out, if your music collection is > nearly all "classical", iTunes is totally incapable of managing it by > itself. I use an external structure of directories and subdirectories > there, too. And it only barely works. My music collection is nearly all classical. And yet iTunes manages it fine. I want to keep track of composer and performer(s) (most), then title of work, date of recording. iTunes keeps track of all of this, and allows me to search or order by any of these things. I don't make much use of genre (though if I needed to invent my own categories, I suppose I could). In the old days, I had my LPs along shelves in order by composer. This worked OK too, mostly, though it is inferior to iTunes because it's hard to search by performer (for example) and it was unclear what to do with albums that had works by more than one composer on them. This is still how my CDs are arranged. (People who listen to classical music still buy CDs.) Anyway, I'm mystified by why one would assume that a classical music collection on the computer can't be organized with iTunes.
From: isw on 19 Dec 2009 12:44 In article <drache-41B820.10304719122009(a)nothing.attdns.com>, erilar <drache(a)chibardun.net.invalid> wrote: > In article <isw-86ECCB.21170418122009@[216.168.3.50]>, > isw <isw(a)witzend.com> wrote: > > > If your photo library is external, that's just not a problem. Find image > > in iPhoto, click and select "edit in external editor". > > Is this something added in later versions? I quit using it in disgust > with version 6. That's the version I'm using. Right-click on any image in an iPhoto window, and the dialog that pops up offers several editing options; one is "external editor". Also, you can set the prefs to the editor of your choice. If you do it that way, iPhoto will dutifully make sure that the edited version is hidden away inside its library folder while the original, even if you are using an external library, will remain untouched. Isasc
From: isw on 19 Dec 2009 12:46 In article <drache-3A55D7.10261819122009(a)nothing.attdns.com>, erilar <drache(a)chibardun.net.invalid> wrote: > In article <isw-4434A7.21112418122009@[216.168.3.50]>, > isw <isw(a)witzend.com> wrote: > > > In article <drache-C7E256.18323318122009(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > > erilar <drache(a)chibardun.net.invalid> wrote: > > > > > 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? Mine have numbers assigned by > > > my camera. > > > > A lot of my images were from 35mm slides, or old prints. And what is > > worse than no names? No metadata. And a dear mother who writes on the > > back, the name of every person in the photo, but NO DATE. > > 8-) I have a sister who periodically sends me ancient fotos to clean > up, along with a request for names. These circulate between her and a > couple other relatives trying to put together genealogy information. > Once in a great while there are one or two where I can say--"oh, that's > me when I was a baby with so and so" because I recognize location or > relatives from some (labeled) fotos of my own. (At 75 one can be a > useful source now and then) But only rarely can anyone supply dates. I hope you, or somebody, is scanning (and annotating) those old photos before they get too damaged. Isaac
From: isw on 19 Dec 2009 12:49
In article <191220090051511462%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <isw-4434A7.21112418122009@[216.168.3.50]>, isw > <isw(a)witzend.com> wrote: > > > A lot of my images were from 35mm slides, or old prints. And what is > > worse than no names? No metadata. And a dear mother who writes on the > > back, the name of every person in the photo, but NO DATE. > > usually the date the slide was processed (not taken) is on the slide > mount somewhere. that should be fairly close. For many of my slides, that info was either not there, or was unreadable -- and not just on single slides; if one was bad the whole roll would be. And old prints, of course, never have anything like that. > however, transcribing all of the information written on the slide into > metadata to be saved in the file after scanning is going to be a pain. Yup. Same as when I digitized my collection of vinyl records; doing all the "bookwork" is what took all the time. Isaac |