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: Jolly Roger on 17 Dec 2009 20:32 In article <drache-59ABFD.18465817122009(a)nothing.attdns.com>, erilar <drache(a)chibardun.net.invalid> wrote: > 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. How is iPhoto a poor organizer, exactly, in your opinion? -- Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts. JR
From: Jolly Roger on 17 Dec 2009 20:36 In article <drache-7E05AC.18502217122009(a)nothing.attdns.com>, erilar <drache(a)chibardun.net.invalid> wrote: > In article <m2ljh1qkvj.fsf(a)revier.com>, Jochem Huhmann <joh(a)gmx.net> > wrote: > > > You do know though that you can tell iPhoto to *not* copy photos into > > its own folders when importing? > Yes, someone in this group pointed that out to me long ago and I did > just that. > But letting it > > copy the photos is still much more comfortable. > So much more comfortable than drag and drop them into the folder I > WANT them in?? iPhoto offers so many better ways to access an manage your photos than a plain-Jane file system, it's almost funny to me you'd say something like that. If your mind was open, and you gave iPhoto a real chance, you'd see that the file system organization you're so strongly holding onto is much more limited. > > I hated iPhoto from day one, too. But then I tried it nonetheless and > > started to like it. It just takes so much manual work out of the > > organizing that most of the time I don't even care about file names and > > where the actual photos are. Plug in camera, let iPhoto import the > > photos, rate and edit and crop them, drag them out to make a copy if you > > want to carry them or edit them elsewhere. Sometimes giving up a bit of > > control and let the computer care for all the boring things is exactly > > what computers are for, I think. > > That's all very well if the computer does the things you WANT it to do, > which iPhoto does NOT do for me. Like what? -- Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts. JR
From: Wes Groleau on 17 Dec 2009 20:42 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. Still, for anything complicated, Finder has its problems, too. Yes, it's great that the user gets to choose his own favorite hierarchy, but what if I want more than one hierarchy? Take genealogy for example: Sometimes, I might want to take a particular time period, narrow it down geographically, then look at first names. Another time, I might want the breakdown to be person to children to grandchildren, to ... How about a database where one column stores a file/document/image, and the other columns--definable by the user--store as much metadata as one wishes? Supported by a Finder/Chooser (generic term) that allows user-defined views allowing any column to be any level of a simulated tree. I use such a tool at work, and although it has some irritations, that part of it is NICE. -- Wes Groleau Kids say … http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett?itemid=1361
From: AV3 on 17 Dec 2009 21:04 On Dec/17/2009 8:3244 PM, Jolly Roger wrote: > In article<drache-59ABFD.18465817122009(a)nothing.attdns.com>, > erilar<drache(a)chibardun.net.invalid> wrote: > >> In article<jollyroger-302D52.15400617122009(a)news.individual.net>, >> Jolly Roger<jollyroger(a)pobox.com> wrote: >> >>> ... >> >> In my case, iPhoto is also a poor organizer. > > 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. We had a similar discussion about iTunes some time ago. But iTunes is superior to iPhoto, in that you can search at least by artist and album names, provided you know the spelling on the imported file. I won't go into detail, since this is about iPhoto. -- ++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++ ||Arnold VICTOR, New York City, i. e., <arvimideQ(a)Wearthlink.net> || ||Arnoldo VIKTORO, Nov-jorkurbo, t. e., <arvimideQ(a)Wearthlink.net> || ||Remove capital letters from e-mail address for correct address/ || || Forigu majusklajn literojn el e-poŝta adreso por ĝusta adreso || ++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++
From: nospam on 17 Dec 2009 21:32
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. personally, i prefer lightroom over iphoto. it's *far* more flexible and unlike iphoto, actually supports raw. aperture is also good and does support raw, but apple is extremely slow in supporting new cameras. adobe is at least on the ball about updates. |