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: Frank P. Eigler on 20 Dec 2009 10:52 AV3 (arvimide(a)earthlink.net) wrote: [snip] : 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. 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. I could have given each photo a keyword identical to : its name at the time I named it, but by now I have more than a thousand : photos to go back and assign each its keyword/name. A big task, to be sure, but if done incrementally and logically (e.g. use batch changes on a group-by-group basis), you can have iPhoto replicate the info. : 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. Only true if you're buying the tune online, or used CDDB/Gracenote on an imported disk. Otherwise, you're starting off with whatever naming convention was used by the guy who made the file -- Non Illegitimi Carborundum
From: J.J. O'Shea on 20 Dec 2009 12:54 On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 12:49:19 -0500, isw wrote (in article <isw-012ECB.09491819122009@[216.168.3.50]>): > 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. That is why I _still_ haven't finished moving all of my old vinyl albums to iTunes. Actually processing the album is simple, and the machine handles that. Adding the relevant tags, now... -- email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
From: J.J. O'Shea on 20 Dec 2009 12:57 On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 01:28:37 -0500, isw wrote (in article <isw-3F2C2C.22283719122009@[216.168.3.50]>): > In article <drache-EA57B1.15105719122009(a)nothing.attdns.com>, > erilar <drache(a)chibardun.net.invalid> wrote: > >> In article <isw-A697A2.09462519122009@[216.168.3.50]>, >> isw <isw(a)witzend.com> wrote: >> >>> I hope you, or somebody, is scanning (and annotating) those old photos >>> before they get too damaged. >> >> Someone is doing it with the ones that get forwarded to me. My own are >> in albums, but many are also on the computer because I scanned them in >> to send to my sister. > > Interestingly, the oldest of the "old photos" my mom left behind are > holding up nicely; the B&W ones, I mean. As long as they don't get damp, > the paper just turns a bit yellow and brittle but otherwise they look > pretty good. The color photos from the fifties, however, are faded > almost beyond Photoshop's (and my limited skills) to overcome. Even > worse, some of my earliest 35mm slides (despite having been not abused > during storage) have already experienced some "emulsion rot" -- around > the edges, mostly. > > But mainly, I have two kids, and whatever I pass along in the way of > family "heritage", I want both to have. Hence the scanning and > annotating effort. > > But getting several thoussand photos in shape is *nothing* compared to > what it takes to convert VHS tapes (of soccer games, school plays, etc.) > to DVD. I can assure you that after I'm done I will continue to take > photos, but I will NEVER AGAIN have anything at all to do with video -- > it's just too much of a black hole for time. > Don't even try to do it yourself, there will be a few local shops which will convert from VHS (or even Beta) to DVD for you. For a price, of course. -- email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
From: AES on 20 Dec 2009 13:18 In article <isw-D44587.10085019122009@[216.168.3.50]>, isw <isw(a)witzend.com> wrote: > In article <drache-2EB16C.10182819122009(a)nothing.attdns.com>, > erilar <drache(a)chibardun.net.invalid> wrote: > > > The thought of an iBooks for my thousands of books is simply beyond > > comprehension. I'd need one of Asimov's self-aware robots to catalog my > > books! > > Not so much for books (though I think it would probably work fairly > well), but for all the other random documents I've acquired over the > years, I finally gave up on trying to create (and actually use) a > structured filing system, and just let Spotlight take care of it. I can > always recall one or two words, or a phrase, to search for that will > give me a tolerably short list of documents to look at. No problem at all with this line of argument. Whether you want to organize all your images, audio files, documents, content files of any format, into a structured filing system or just dump them randomly onto your hard disk is very much a matter of personal preference. Spotlight will take care of finding individual files for you either way, and does an increasingly better job of it with time, i.e., with successive upgrades (and in doing that, makes the organizing/cataloging properties of iTunes, iPhoto, "IDocs" increasingly irrelevant). The one major benefit of a structured filing system is that (almost) everything you've acquired for, say, "Project Churchill" (all files in any file format) can all be in a single folder tree; and hence you can instantly get an overview -- in fact, a complete view -- of (almost) everything you have on that topic, _independent of file format_, just using the Finder in List or Column mode -- which for some of us is the way things should be done. (And, Spotlight can rapidly track down anything related that's not in that topic folder). The downside is of course that you have define and organize your structure of choice, and occasionally revise it.
From: AES on 20 Dec 2009 13:31
In article <1jaz2z3.ej4ac11m9w6dmN%nospam(a)see.signature>, nospam(a)see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote: > I'm currently using BookCollector (collectorz.com). It handles thousands > of books quite nicely. So do quite a few competitors. > Except, none of them really _handle_ the books literally or position them physically, do they? -- that is, decide where the books themselves are to be physically located, in the way that iTunes or iPhoto, operating in default mode, decide where their physical files are to be located? That was the point to my "iBooks" parody. [And as an aside, the document cataloging app EndNote has a "Link to PDF" field in each of its entries. If you have a PDF copy of any EndNote-cataloged document somewhere on your HD, you can just drag and drop the icon for that file onto the "Link to PDF" field in the catalog entry for that document and it will establish a link to the PDF file (_without_ insisting on dragging the file itself off to some weird location where EndNote wants to put it) |