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 23:25 In article <hgenvp$h29$1(a)news.albasani.net>, AV3 <arvimide(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > 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. 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. -- 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 23:50 In article <hgemlt$78i$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Wes Groleau <Groleau+news(a)FreeShell.org> wrote: > AES wrote: > (in defense of Finder as a better organizer than iTunes or iPhoto) > > The key aspect of my use of a Mac laptop as the core of my personal and > > professional life is precisely a file/folder structure which organizes > > all the varying topics (professional projects, hobbies, interests) in > > which I'm interested -- a structure which I've created myself, so that I > > therefore know exactly how its organized. > > I have to agree. iTunes insists that artists have albums and albums > have songs. Want to keep several versions of the same song together? > Nope. Several artists collaborate on an album? Pick ONE. Couldn't you just as well use the Grouping and Composer fields, or playlists, for that? -- Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts. JR
From: nospam on 18 Dec 2009 00:03 In article <jollyroger-974D11.22503417122009(a)news.individual.net>, Jolly Roger <jollyroger(a)pobox.com> wrote: > > I have to agree. iTunes insists that artists have albums and albums > > have songs. Want to keep several versions of the same song together? > > Nope. Several artists collaborate on an album? Pick ONE. > > Couldn't you just as well use the Grouping and Composer fields, or > playlists, for that? or one of the sort tags.
From: Steve Hix on 18 Dec 2009 00:05 In article <hgenvp$h29$1(a)news.albasani.net>, AV3 <arvimide(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > On Dec/17/2009 8:3244 PM, Jolly Roger wrote: > > In article<drache-59ABFD.18465817122009(a)nothing.attdns.com>, > > erilar<drache(a)chibardun.net.invalid> wrote: > > > >> In article<jollyroger-302D52.15400617122009(a)news.individual.net>, > >> Jolly Roger<jollyroger(a)pobox.com> wrote: > >> > >> In my case, iPhoto is also a poor organizer. > > > > How is iPhoto a poor organizer, exactly, in your opinion? > > In my opinion, its big problem is how to find a particular picture on > the hard disk. You assign a name to the picture and put it in an album, > but iPhoto stores it in a particular year under a code name. I have > family pictures (for instance) of individuals from every year of my > catalogue, so finding an individual picture depends not on searching but > on opening iPhoto and (in effect) finding the original of an alias. I > would prefer to be able to search directly by my own criteria. Keywords. - Window -> Show Keywords (you can add/delete/edit them there). - View -> Sort Photos -> By Keyword Takes a bit to set up initially, but if you keep it up from then on, you can dig up any given picture in a few seconds.
From: Steve Hix on 18 Dec 2009 00:09
In article <171220092132311911%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <hgenvp$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. > > 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. I've gotten around that problem, at least until Apple caught up with my camera, by converting RAW to DNG with Adobe's converter. Aperture will read DNG (RAW DNG, not Linear DNG). |