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: nospam on 18 Dec 2009 00:16 In article <sehix-08A9BB.21090717122009(a)nntp.aioe.org>, Steve Hix <sehix(a)NOSPAMmac.comINVALID> wrote: > > 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). as i recall, aperture offers additional capabilities when importing dng if the original camera is supported in osx, versus dng from a camera that isn't supported natively. having switched to lightroom, i don't remember the details though.
From: isw on 18 Dec 2009 00:38 In article <83609bdd-a16c-49e6-85c1-d06803c21ec0(a)r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, James Dale Guckert <Dipthot(a)Yahoo.com> wrote: > On Dec 16, 11:29�pm, Ant <a...(a)zimage.comANT> wrote: > > Hello! > > > > One of my clients does not like Apple Mac OS X 10.5.7's iPhoto which is > > limited and confusing to him. He doesn't like how albums, layouts, etc. > > work. We would like to know if there are better softwares (freeware if > > possible) to handle digital pictures/photographs on a MacBook Pro. > > > > I use iPhoto pretty much exclusively to organize and manage photos, > but I recently bought a Canon camera, and I like some of the features > (like Photostitch) that the accompanying software included for which I > couldn't find equivalents in iPhoto. I could see some people using > that program instead, based on one's needs and tastes. I just use both. For making panoramas, I've used "Hugin" a couple of times. Worked fine, and is free. It's on SourceForge. Isaac
From: isw on 18 Dec 2009 00:46 In article <C74FD9C5.4813B8%bobhaar(a)me.com>, Robert Haar <bobhaar(a)me.com> wrote: > On 12/17/09 10:01 AM, "Ant" <ant(a)zimage.comANT> wrote: > > > On 12/17/2009 1:35 AM PT, Calum typed: > > > >> On 17/12/09 07:29, Ant wrote: > >>> Hello! > >>> > >>> One of my clients does not like Apple Mac OS X 10.5.7's iPhoto which is > >>> limited and confusing to him. He doesn't like how albums, layouts, etc. > >>> work. We would like to know if there are better softwares (freeware if > >>> possible) to handle digital pictures/photographs on a MacBook Pro. > > >> > >> However, without knowing how many photos your client has, what he wants > >> to do with them, what he doesn't like about iPhoto, and how he'd prefer > >> things to work, it's hard to recommend any alternatives, free or otherwise. > >> > >> (It's also worth noting that iPhoto is deliberatly somewhat 'limited' > >> because it has a big brother in the Apple stable, Aperture, that's aimed > >> more at the professional market.) > > > > He does basic stuff like importing/copying photographs/photos. from his > > digital cameras, keep them in his HDDs, view them, share/upload via > > e-mails and in person, organize, crop/resize, etc. Just basic stuff. > > That is precisely what I use iPhoto for and works quite well IMO. My photo > collection contains about 13,000 images so it certainly scaled for casual > use. > > As Calum indicated, Aperture is a step up, aimed at the professional user. I > like its workflow for raw processing but I prefer the usability of iPhoto > and start there for almost all tasks. > > Iphoto, like many Apple products has its own terminology. But once you get > you head around the concepts, it is fairly powerful. The key part of this is > that all the organizing and cataloging is done within iPhoto. Don't create > file/folder structures outside of iPhoto and expect iPhoto to honor that > structure. Of course it will, if you tell it to leave the images where you put them -- Preferences/Advanced/UNcheck "Copy files to iPhoto Library...". Then create whatever kind of folder structure you please, put your photos in them as you please, and *only then* tell iPhoto about them. It will never move a one of them. Isaac
From: isw on 18 Dec 2009 00:50 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! There is an easy option to tell it "Use an external editor"; then you can do "real" editing whenever you want. I used to use Photoshop, but that broke when I moved to Leopard; now I use GIMP. Isaac
From: isw on 18 Dec 2009 00:53
In article <m2pr6dqlu6.fsf(a)revier.com>, Jochem Huhmann <joh(a)gmx.net> wrote: > erilar <drache(a)chibardun.net.invalid> writes: > > > 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! > > For an photo *organizer* its editing capabilities aren't all that bad, > really. Recent versions do incremental editing, so you can change and > undo your edits at any point later on and for the basic things > (cropping, adjusting colors/brightness/contrast) it works just fine and > comfortable. The real annoyance I have with iPhoto's editing is that there's no way to tell it that you *want* to overwrite the original file with the new version. Doing it the "Apple" way will cause iPhoto to slowly but surely take away the structure of folders you so carefully created to hold your images, because it stores the altered versions internally. There is a pretty easy way around that, but it's annoying to have to do it. Isaac |