iPhoto 4.0.2 In July? [Archive]

ebow

Jul 20, 2004, 02:49 PM

I haven't really used iPhoto because I hate the complicated file structure it uses to store the files.

Pictures>iPhoto>Albums>PagesofAlbums>2003>Spring>May>24th>AM>GoodLighting>GimmeABreak

I imagine I could probably override this default, but I found the default so irritating that I never used the app again. This would be the easiest thing to fix, and would be a very worthwhile enhancement.

I understand your annoyance, but the point of iPhoto is supposed to be "File structure? What's a file structure?" :D Seriously, though, it shows you pictures in rolls and/or albums, and the kind of user who just wants to tweak, arrange, and share photos won't care where the actual photo files are.

I just wish that iPhoto 4 were available as a standalone download, instead of exlusively as part of iLife. I'll get to see what version 4 is all about when I get a new computer...

WM.

Jul 20, 2004, 03:11 PM

Most cameras have the ability to connect as a Mass Storage Device (maybe an option in the settings menu) -- so the camera itself becomes the card reader.
You can also use Image Capture. That goes for TorbX too. :)

Aciddan

Jul 20, 2004, 04:12 PM

I want them to support small video flicks that I take with my Canon Ixus. I had to get myself a card-reading dongle where I insert my memorycard, in order to get them onto my computer.

I hava a Canon Powershot s30 which does video too. When I take small clips, I use the Image Capture program. You just scroll through the list until you hit your videos then download them (unless you have already tried Image Capture).

-- Dan =)

AppleMatt

Jul 20, 2004, 05:02 PM

I haven't really used iPhoto because I hate the complicated file structure it uses to store the files.

Pictures>iPhoto>Albums>PagesofAlbums>2003>Spring>May>24th>AM>GoodLighting>GimmeABreak

Completely agree, it's a mess.

I don't see the point of informing users when new versions are available unless it runs Software Update to do so, because either people know about SU and use it, or they don't know about it and don't use it (so alerting them and running Software Update would make them aware).

AppleMatt

MontgomeryBurns

Jul 20, 2004, 05:28 PM

I understand your annoyance, but the point of iPhoto is supposed to be "File structure? What's a file structure?" :D Seriously, though, it shows you pictures in rolls and/or albums, and the kind of user who just wants to tweak, arrange, and share photos won't care where the actual photo files are.
Really though, the point of iphoto isn't "whats a file structure?", its to have a graphical interface for accessing photos. It seems that iphoto should be as intuitive as itunes for organizing its files. Instead it buries them to such an extreme degree that a casual user would have no idea at all how to find the files on their hard drive should the need arise.
When I have something in iphoto that needs some actual editing (other brightness/contrast or the silly "Enhance" button), I have to export the file to the desktop to open it in photoshop (and I DON't want to have to open photoshop every time i want to view something as other than a thumbnail). Then I have a file on my desktop thats different from its iphoto counterpart, which I could add to my library, but then iphoto would put that image in some other random ass directory, and we're back where we started. Boo.

rikers_mailbox

Jul 20, 2004, 05:53 PM

keltorsori

Jul 20, 2004, 06:11 PM

Really though, the point of iphoto isn't "whats a file structure?", its to have a graphical interface for accessing photos. It seems that iphoto should be as intuitive as itunes for organizing its files. Instead it buries them to such an extreme degree that a casual user would have no idea at all how to find the files on their hard drive should the need arise.
When I have something in iphoto that needs some actual editing (other brightness/contrast or the silly "Enhance" button), I have to export the file to the desktop to open it in photoshop (and I DON't want to have to open photoshop every time i want to view something as other than a thumbnail). Then I have a file on my desktop thats different from its iphoto counterpart, which I could add to my library, but then iphoto would put that image in some other random ass directory, and we're back where we started. Boo.

Actually there is a much easier way to do this. If you already have Photoshop open or the icon in your dock, just drag the thumbnail of the image you want to edit from the iPhoto window onto the Photoshop dock icon. It will open in photoshop and when you save it, it will replace the version in iPhoto. Pieza de pan.

aswitcher

Jul 20, 2004, 06:30 PM

I want them to support small video flicks that I take with my Canon Ixus. I had to get myself a card-reading dongle where I insert my memorycard, in order to get them onto my computer.

Yes, that and voice would be excellent. It would be really good if iPhoto at least recongnised movies and pulled them off without the need for third party software to do the same even if it couldn't play them.

Also nice would be importing with more logical names for images that would be done by a prompt at the time of importing. IE
Start importing and the first block of shots for one day or hour would pop up a window saying what title do you want for these, then when it gets to the next logical break of an hour/day or whatever parameter you set, the same thing occurs, so that when they get into iPhoto you have far more meaningful titles that are fairly accurate for most of your material.

I would also like rating stars to appear on screen like iTunes for easy access

An option to have both rotate clockwise and anitclockwise not just one would be good. Supremely excellent if it could do this for little videos which even iMovie doesn't seem to offer.

Changing music and features for slide shows should be clickable on the screen and not through the menu preferences

Quick Time exports should supply different sizes as well as the manual change and also provide estimates of file size based on selection before export occurs...

Anonymous Freak

Jul 20, 2004, 06:33 PM

Actually there is a much easier way to do this. If you already have Photoshop open or the icon in your dock, just drag the thumbnail of the image you want to edit from the iPhoto window onto the Photoshop dock icon. It will open in photoshop and when you save it, it will replace the version in iPhoto. Pieza de pan.

Or, even easier, go to the iPhoto prefs, and set Photoshop as your 'External Editing' program, and set it so that on double-clicking a photo, it opens your external app. Now, when you double click on a pic in iPhoto, it opens in Photoshop. When you close it in Photoshop and save, it saves it back to your iPhoto library.

Personally, I love using iPhoto as an organization software, and use Photoshop for editing.

Also, I too would like to have iPhoto support the audio clips that my camera can associate with an app. (I made an iTunes playlist of the audio clips, and set an iPhoto slideshow with that playlist as the music. That's as close as I could get.)

The final complaint is searching! I want real searching back! I want to search my comments, keywords, titles, dates, roll names, etc. I want it in a nice little search box at the bottom like in iPhoto 2, with live-updating display like iTunes.

Bring back real search! (They'd better fix this before Tiger comes out. If iPhoto still has it's crappy-ass search when they have added such a powerful search to the OS, I'll be disappointed in the iLife software team.)

encro

Jul 20, 2004, 07:37 PM

soo. . a bit off topic, but can anyone think of a reason why digital cameras can't be bluetooth? BT is supposed to be the wireless equivilent of USB, no?

Why can't I pair a camera with my BT module and import photos?!

Maybe that will be in iPhoto 5.0, and work with an Apple-branded camera. Kidding, of course.

Edit: found one here (http://techdigestuk.typepad.com/tech_digest/2003/12/bluetooth_digit.html), but it's not that cool.

Bluetooth is good for small amounts of data but trying to transfer high resolution images thru BT is overkill. While Bluetooth maybe the equivalent of wireless USB in use; it is by no means close to USB transfer rates (I'm reluctant to say speed ;) )

rikers_mailbox

Jul 20, 2004, 08:05 PM

Bluetooth is good for small amounts of data but trying to transfer high resolution images thru BT is overkill. While Bluetooth maybe the equivalent of wireless USB in use; it is by no means close to USB transfer rates (I'm reluctant to say speed ;) )

yes, makes sense now. Transferring high-res images through BT would be comparable to transferring music, file sizes can average around 4-6 Mb. Doesn't sound like fun waiting for that.

Moving to next-in-kin wired/wireless technology, there's Wireless Firewire (that just sounds weird). What is power consumption on that? And what are the theoretical vs. actual data rates?

Just being curious. Sorry to further perpetuate the off-topic.

CmdrLaForge

Jul 21, 2004, 04:06 AM

JFreak

Jul 21, 2004, 04:35 AM

Exactly, and thats the spirit and thinking of using a Mac ! Why should you care what a file structure is ? Just use the App !

yes, but intelligent file handling is an indication of an intelligent app ;) i really love the way itunes handles files, so the same standard can be expected from iphoto as well. apple will be able to do better than this.

sjk

Jul 21, 2004, 04:59 AM

Yesterday I started a ~100MB with iPhoto 4.0.1 to CD-RW on my eMac, left for about an hour, and when I got back the disk appeared to have been burned (it was mounted) but iPhoto was still spinning its LSD cursor and the system had created four new swapfiles. Had to Force Quit.

Not a satisfying result for the first burn test with iPhoto 4 and eMac. Maybe I'll wait for 4.0.2 before trying again.

I'd like hierarchical album support in a future version and/or a way to temporarily hide albums that I'm not interested in seeing all the time. Same with iTunes playlists. And I foresee the need for UI enhancements to hide "uninteresting" information could become even more important with Spotlight technology in Tiger. I want UIs that make it convenient to find and focus attention on information that's relevant to the context of what I'm working on at the moment or else it can become a unwanted distraction.

Does anyone really need dozens or iPhoto Albums, iTunes playlists, etc. "visible" all the time? Tradtionally, hierarchies have been as useful for hiding things as organizing them but there are other possibilities ...

robbieduncan

Jul 21, 2004, 05:33 AM

An option to have both rotate clockwise and anitclockwise not just one would be good.

Try holding down the option key! No really. The buttons in the bottom left change (for example rotate changes to be the other way). :D

aswitcher

Jul 21, 2004, 05:37 AM

Try holding down the option key! No really. The buttons in the bottom left change (for example rotate changes to be the other way). :D

Thanks!

Demon

Jul 21, 2004, 10:33 AM

are you allowed to have folder within another folder?
or an album within another album?
sub dividing the albums further? otherwise... there's going to be hundreds of albums sooner or later. terrible library system on iPhoto...

notmenotyou

Jul 21, 2004, 12:29 PM

mainstreetmark

Jul 21, 2004, 01:59 PM

I noticed that I can't Picture Share with other users on the same computer. I'd like to have access to them without having to fast user switch to them.

techgeek

Jul 21, 2004, 03:13 PM

I noticed that I can't Picture Share with other users on the same computer. I'd like to have access to them without having to fast user switch to them.

Agreed!
When I try, the share appears, cursor spins and share disapears.
Very disapointing.
:(

Porchland

Jul 21, 2004, 03:43 PM

Really though, the point of iphoto isn't "whats a file structure?", its to have a graphical interface for accessing photos. It seems that iphoto should be as intuitive as itunes for organizing its files. Instead it buries them to such an extreme degree that a casual user would have no idea at all how to find the files on their hard drive should the need arise.
When I have something in iphoto that needs some actual editing (other brightness/contrast or the silly "Enhance" button), I have to export the file to the desktop to open it in photoshop (and I DON't want to have to open photoshop every time i want to view something as other than a thumbnail). Then I have a file on my desktop thats different from its iphoto counterpart, which I could add to my library, but then iphoto would put that image in some other random ass directory, and we're back where we started. Boo.

Have you tried dragging the thumbnail in iPhoto onto the Photoshop icon? I use this regularly, and it should open right up in Photoshop, save your changes, and close it.

EDIT:

Oops, just saw post No. 12.

Kingsnapped

Jul 21, 2004, 05:11 PM

I don't have a problem at all with the iPhoto structure.
iPhoto lib.>year>month>day>pic
When I'm uploading a picture to an FTP, it only takes a couple seconds.. less if I have iPhoto open so I can see the title.

Anonymous Freak

Jul 21, 2004, 05:48 PM

I noticed that I can't Picture Share with other users on the same computer. I'd like to have access to them without having to fast user switch to them.

The best I have come up with is to store the library in a 'public' folder, and have each user use the one library in its shared location. I haven't yet tried having iPhoto running for more than one user simultaneously, though. I imagine that could cause problems. (By that, I mean having iPhoto open with two users logged in at the same time, change a photo, fast user switch, and see if it changed on the other user. I do *NOT* know if that will work.)

sjk

Jul 21, 2004, 07:47 PM

are you allowed to have folder within another folder?
or an album within another album?
sub dividing the albums further?Nope.
otherwise... there's going to be hundreds of albums sooner or later. terrible library system on iPhoto...Yep, as I wrote in my previous post -- iPhoto needs album hierarchies and/or some way to temporarily hide albums.

DJY

Jul 22, 2004, 03:41 AM

needs better library / heirarchy system if you ask me...
and a better way to locate specific photos within albums and libraryies - w ithout having to create smart albums

If I know the name of a photo I'd like to be easily able to get to it / display it. I'm only a new swticher as well - but I have had some trouble saving photos of the net or from email attachments into iPhoto as well... must do some homework in the forums to work this one out easily as well.

Demon

Jul 22, 2004, 07:52 AM

so... i guess iPhoto sucks!
but damn it, i'm a die hard Apple fan... so i'll just wait for improvements. haha, drawback of loyalty.

make it worth it Apple!

fracai

Jul 22, 2004, 11:55 AM

try using Image Capture to get movies off of your camera. they won't be imported into iPhoto but it's a nice, easy, Apple method for accessing your camera contents.

mdelaney123

Jul 22, 2004, 03:14 PM

Exactly, and thats the spirit and thinking of using a Mac ! Why should you care what a file structure is ? Just use the App !

Well, one really BIG reason to care about the file structure is that there may come a time that you will not be using iPhoto... :eek:

In that case, what are you going to do with the thousands of pictures?

There is no way to understand the file system that is used to organize the photos! All of the date changes, keywords, captions, file name changes... EVERYTHING is LOST!!!!!!

That is a BIG risk to be taking....

I realized this after I had 5000+ pictures "organized" in the app...

And this is the very reason I stopped using iPhoto!!!!

As an owner of both a PC and 2 MACs, I have to give the nod to Microsoft when it comes to Digital Image organizers... Digital Image Suite includes Digital Image Library, which blows iPhoto away in every aspect...

Keywords, ratings, captions, date changes, file name changes, etc are all stored WITH THE PHOTO in the EXIF information...

Although the program does not "automatically" organize the photos into direcotires, it does provide a very easy way for you to organize them yourself... Even if you do a crappy job at it, you can sill pull up all your pictures by date, keyword, rating, etc...

I love my MACs, especially for iDVD... But man, iPhoto BLOWS! :(

w00tmaster

Jul 22, 2004, 04:42 PM

I want them to support small video flicks that I take with my Canon Ixus. I had to get myself a card-reading dongle where I insert my memorycard, in order to get them onto my computer.
I have a Canon Powershot A70, and I just use the software that came with the camera to get the movies off. Their software is a bit slow, but it does it's job, never had it crash on me in OS X.
It's still a pain though, I have to open 2 different applications.

7on

Jul 22, 2004, 08:40 PM

how else would you organize pictures? By color intensity? The year>month>day format works ok, though I never use it because I drag the photo out of iPhoto itself onto the desktop and edit. Then I redrag it into iPhoto and compare side by side with the original. Only thing though, is that I wished iPhoto would delete the original file (if you've edited) like every month or so. And have an automatic album called "originals." Nested albums would be awesome. It'd allow me to stop using the pictures folder for my misc pictures. Like backgrounds, web funies, etc. I only use iPhoto for my digital camera shots now.

The point of itunes and iphoto is so the user does have to worry with the finder hierarchal system. Apple might has well have made the folders invisible by default.

mdelaney123

Jul 22, 2004, 09:09 PM

The point of itunes and iphoto is so the user does have to worry with the finder hierarchal system. Apple might has well have made the folders invisible by default.

Yes, maybe so... But that is no excuse NOT to have a good folder/file system!!!!

iTunes has it... WHY NOY iPHOTO?

Why make iPhoto's file system so illogical and un-friendly???????

:confused:

Freg3000

Jul 22, 2004, 10:05 PM

Yes, maybe so... But that is no excuse NOT to have a good folder/file system!!!!

iTunes has it... WHY NOY iPHOTO?

Why make iPhoto's file system so illogical and un-friendly???????

:confused:

Yeah, it is not very friendly, but at least it is possible to understand. It would be much more easy to understand if instead of "04" it said April for the month.

Dunno why it is so hard to change that, and make it so much easier.

ClimbingTheLog

Jul 22, 2004, 10:22 PM

yes, but intelligent file handling is an indication of an intelligent app ;) i really love the way itunes handles files, so the same standard can be expected from iphoto as well. apple will be able to do better than this.

Right... where's the metadata for iPhoto to use to automatically determine your file structure?

iTunes has the CDDB. Do you expect iPhoto to say, "Oh, that's a picture of Aunt Sally," and file it under Photos > Family > Annoying > Aunt Sally?

Most people don't annotate their photos so iPhoto has nothing to go on but date.

JFreak

Jul 23, 2004, 12:27 AM

Right... where's the metadata for iPhoto to use to automatically determine your file structure?

iTunes has the CDDB. Do you expect iPhoto to say, "Oh, that's a picture of Aunt Sally," and file it under Photos > Family > Annoying > Aunt Sally?

Most people don't annotate their photos so iPhoto has nothing to go on but date.

excellent question, but i didn't suggest any cddb-like thing because that is impossible and not needed. digital cameras store that date metadata automatically within the image file, so that's there by default. it's easy for iphoto to extract it and arrange files accordingly.

now, the way iphoto does it, that sucks; in comparison, itunes keeps its library in an xml file where everything is nicely structured and keeps its files in nicely organized directory hierarchy. there's nothing wrong with iphoto placing image files into directories by year/month/day but that's only a half of the solution, and apple needs to implement the same kind of xml data storage to iphoto as in itunes, because currently the directory hierarchy contains all kinds of extra files in addition to the image files. itunes doesn't do that, the xml data storage is enough. but iphoto... sheesh, you don't need to import anything into iphoto to make a new directory entry into the iphoto library. it is enough if you just open the app and it puts a file into its library to show that you used the app that day.

i'd just like that the "iPhoto Library" folder would only contain my photos, and only that, nothing else. all extra data and album info must be stored somewhere else, not there.

katanna

Jul 23, 2004, 02:26 AM

I just glanced through this thread. Two things that I saw were that the file structure is terrible and that iPhoto should be able to support other media types (video, audio, ect.)
First of all, this is iPhoto. iPHOTO!! (not to be confused with IFOTOS). iPhoto does exactly what it does: takes care of photos. If you want to use your audio with your camera, use iTunes. Video, that is why we have iMovie.
To those that think that the file structure is off... I agree, and so what? It is kinda like in iTunes: who ever needs to look at the file structure any way? If you want to find a picture, go to the top left, choose export (and to the person who said it is clunky... I dissagree 100% It is hardly one more click past Save). It is that easy.
I appologize if I am harsh, it is just that I am tired of people rejecting a great program because of one minor thing. I was in another forum today and there was a guy who renounced iTunes, said it was the worst program ever, and was cussing it! Why? Because after he bought some songs online, he deleated them from his computer and expected Apple to give them back. Give me a break!! This is why PC people will never like Macs. Because they are 1% different, they are unexeptible and will never be looked at again!
I am sorry about the raving, but it really gets me mad when people refuse to give a great program a second chance.

Matthew

PS: Thanks for that tip about Photoshop... I will use that!

katanna

Jul 23, 2004, 02:31 AM

excellent question, but i didn't suggest any cddb-like thing because that is impossible and not needed. digital cameras store that date metadata automatically within the image file, so that's there by default. it's easy for iphoto to extract it and arrange files accordingly....

I do agree with JFreak on his entire post. One thing that I have noticed the only time I tried to look through the actual files, is that the pictures are not the only files there, and the pictures seem to be in several places. I was rather confused right away, so I just export my pictures instead... that way I never have to worry about it!

Matthew

katanna

Jul 23, 2004, 02:47 AM

so... i guess iPhoto sucks!QUOTE]
Please, Please, Please don't come into a forum like this and listen to all of the whining and moaning about a product and decide if you like it. iPhoto is one of the greatest pieces of software that comes on a Mac. Compare this to what you get on a PC: preview. wow. great. With iPhoto, you can do just about anything a family needs for it's home photos. It is an amazing piece of software, and these people are here complaining about it's few small faults, talking like it is the end of the world!

[QUOTE=mdelaney123]I realized this after I had 5000+ pictures "organized" in the app...
Bingo, there is your problem right there. While iPhoto can handle a load this size, it was never designed for it. It is suposed to be for family pictures, that you take on the weekend, or on vacation... I have several hundred pictures and iPhoto works great. If you have more than 5000 pictures, please, use something else!! It is kinda like making Spiderman 2 using iMovie. It is just not what it was designed for (though this has been done... There have been movies in Europe that were made in iMovie, and many American movies have been made using Final Cut Pro, even popular ones (can't remember titles, sorry!)).

Matthew

PS: Sorry, didn't mean to tripple post, but I kinda got dragged into this discussion...

mdelaney123

Jul 23, 2004, 04:19 AM

To those that think that the file structure is off... I agree, and so what? .......I appologize if I am harsh, it is just that I am tired of people rejecting a great program because of one minor thing.

iPhoto stinks becuase of more than 1 minor thing!

1. File structure is useless
2. Keyword, dates, etc... Not stored with photo
3. SLOW with large amounts of pictures
4. Chaging/adding Keyword and dates is clunky compared to other programs
5. Keeping original photos with no option to NOT keep them is silly

To me 1 and 2 are show stoppers...

If you want to see it done right, check out Mucrosoft Digital Image Library (contained in Digital Image Suite) on the PC...

(I am not bashing the Apple... just iPhoto.... I cannot live without iMovie/iDVD... ) :D

JFreak

Jul 23, 2004, 04:53 AM

iPhoto stinks becuase of more than 1 minor thing!

1. File structure is useless
2. Keyword, dates, etc... Not stored with photo
3. SLOW with large amounts of pictures
4. Chaging/adding Keyword and dates is clunky compared to other programs
5. Keeping original photos with no option to NOT keep them is silly

To me 1 and 2 are show stoppers...

If you want to see it done right, check out Mucrosoft Digital Image Library (contained in Digital Image Suite) on the PC...

(I am not bashing the Apple... just iPhoto.... I cannot live without iMovie/iDVD... ) :D

first point is a major issue with iphoto, i think you should - as well as others too - whine about it in www.apple.com/feedback site. i have already, and will do after every version update if this issue is not addressed properly.

second point is just whining. does jpeg standard have keywords in it? if it doesn't, there is no way apple can include keywords into jpeg files. can the keywork data be put into EXIF data? dunno, can someone confirm this?

third point will perhaps be addressed in the future major upgrades, as we saw the iphoto4 being A LOT faster than previous versions. again, please provide feedback so apple knows we care.

fourth and fifth, i have nothing to comment except... GIVE FEEDBACK TO APPLE, please!

mdelaney123

Jul 23, 2004, 06:02 AM

first point is a major issue with iphoto, i think you should - as well as others too - whine about it in www.apple.com/feedback site.

I have sent them a detailed feedback...

second point is just whining. does jpeg standard have keywords in it? if it doesn't, there is no way apple can include keywords into jpeg files. can the keywork data be put into EXIF data? dunno, can someone confirm this?

Whining??? To answer your question, YES, the jpeg standard allows for EXIF data to be stored with each picture. The EXIF data has space for keywords, captions, comments, dates, ratings, etc!!!!! Why Apple does not support this is anyone's guess... As I stated, Microsoft's Digital Image Suite 9 supports this feature, and it does it blazingly fast!

Earendil

Jul 23, 2004, 11:43 AM

[QUOTE=mdelaney123]iPhoto stinks becuase of more than 1 minor thing!

1. File structure is useless

That is a bit black and white. After all the much easier (in my mind) ways of doing what you want to do, I'm not sure why the file structure is all that important. But really, aside from changing "04" to "April" how exactly would you have iPhoto store photos aside from year/month/date ?!

2. Keyword, dates, etc... Not stored with photo

They are for me...
Perhaps not ratings and notes, but certainly dates (like every file) and it keeps all my EXIF data intact, like exposure time, aperture size, ISO settings. So you want the ratings to stay within the EXIF data? why? AFAIK, if you stored "iphoto ratings" ect in the EXIF data, it would only be useful to a program that knew how to read EXIF data put there by iPhoto.

3. SLOW with large amounts of pictures

I have a 1.25mgz computer and load 4000 pictures amounting to 1.8 gigs, and the library loads faster than PS CS can open a picture...

4. Changing/adding Keyword and dates is clunky compared to other programs

haven't tried other apps, but I do wish it was easier to change dates in mass (and not all to the exact same date).

5. Keeping original photos with no option to NOT keep them is silly

does it actually keep two completely different copies of the image? I always assumed it just recorded the effects (to which there are very few in iPhoto) and applied/un-applied them as people messed with photos or reverted back to original.

To me 1 and 2 are show stoppers...

If you want to see it done right, check out Mucrosoft Digital Image Library (contained in Digital Image Suite) on the PC...

(I am not bashing the Apple... just iPhoto.... I cannot live without iMovie/iDVD... ) :D

sounds to me a bit like you are expecting Prosumer results from regular joe shmoe (and even that is low) program for sorting pictures that is essentially free. Especially for you, seeing as you obviously will continue to buy iMovie/iDVD as it is updated, you are getting iPhoto for nothing.

If there is a better program to use, by all means go use it. I don't think Apple is claiming iPhoto as the professional picture sorter of the year, nor are they charging a professional price for it. Certainly my parents don't care about EXIF data (or know what it is), nor do I'm sure 99.9% of Apple users today. My mom has a hard time navigating the file structure of the OSX, yet she can handle the GUI of iPhoto with ease. This I believe is the point of iPhoto.

So why complain about Professional style features on an obviously consumer level product?
For the record though, iPhoto works splendidly for my own professional photography work, and the price is far lower than any other program I use.

-Tyler Zuck

JFreak

Jul 23, 2004, 11:51 AM

yes, iphoto keeps two copies of those photos that have been changed within iphoto. even if the change was a simple 90 degree rotate. when you make a change, iphoto creates an "originals" folder to store the original file and after the backup has been made, iphoto generates a new file to the library.

it is good policy to store the originals (which can be compared to the "film frame" of analog time), but having a large library, those original backups waste a large chunk of hard drive space, too. i just recently deleted a gigabyte of originals ;)

katanna

Jul 23, 2004, 01:33 PM

So why complain about Professional style features on an obviously consumer level product?
This is exactly what I was trying to say in my above posts, but I couldn't put it in good words (no, I am not an English Major!). Thanks for saying what I ment!

Matthew

må¥å

Jul 23, 2004, 01:36 PM

Off Topic however I want to see an Expose style sheet added to all the iApps.

Would be sleek and never done before think about it, keep the UI clean and simple unless you want more power and control over every part of the iApp all you hav eto do it reveal it via a different sort of Expose system style.

Now I don't think this idea has been implemented in any application so if anyone developes this I want a cut or recognition. ;) :D

And to make it ever so better an application will be small and grow as the uses grow in its useability. Its the evolution of any application.

cheers mates.

faintedlife

Jul 23, 2004, 01:51 PM

How about a fix for the problem with loading photos?

I had over 1000+ photos in my library and a few weeks after loading iPhoto 4, iPhoto decided not to load my photos. All it does is sit there with the revolving waiting icon. It's useless for me now.

Anyone have the same problem and fix it? I've tried the support boards and nothing works.

mdelaney123

Jul 23, 2004, 02:52 PM

[QUOTE=mdelaney123]iPhoto stinks becuase of more than 1 minor thing!

1. File structure is useless

But really, aside from changing "04" to "April" how exactly would you have iPhoto store photos aside from year/month/date ?!

What I would like is to have iPhoto create the folder structure logically.

-2004
-07
-01
-02
-03

And so on... But MOST IMPORTANTLY, when I change the "date taken" I want the photo moved to that new date!!!!

Why have this type of file structure? What happens if you loose your iPhoto database? Want to stop using iPhoto and use something else? Apple goes out of business?

You are stuck with a MESS of photos that are impossible to find!!!!!!

må¥å

Jul 23, 2004, 09:06 PM

What I would like is to have iPhoto create the folder structure logically.

-2004
-07
-01
-02
-03

And so on... But MOST IMPORTANTLY, when I change the "date taken" I want the photo moved to that new date!!!!

Why have this type of file structure? What happens if you loose your iPhoto database? Want to stop using iPhoto and use something else? Apple goes out of business?

You are stuck with a MESS of photos that are impossible to find!!!!!!

Introducing "SpotLight" available soon in OS x.4 Tiger. ;) :D

Earendil

Jul 24, 2004, 10:46 AM

[QUOTE=mdelaney123]What I would like is to have iPhoto create the folder structure logically.

-2004
-07
-01
-02
-03

We should all do some research before we start debating stuff, this goes for me as well. I opened up my iPhoto Library to take a look at it, and here is what I found.

http://w3.gorge.net/zuck/tyler/misc/iphotolib.jpg

This would appear to be what you are describing, no?

And so on... But MOST IMPORTANTLY, when I change the "date taken" I want the photo moved to that new date!!!!

Unfortunately you are right about this one :(

Why have this type of file structure? What happens if you loose your iPhoto database?

If you lose your data base, than it really doesn't matter what type of file structure you have, because all your data is gone ;)

Want to stop using iPhoto and use something else?

Then you'd have to import all your photos into the new program. Apple's file structure isn't going to automate this transition for you. Same as if you were moving from a different program to iPhoto...

Apple goes out of business? You are stuck with a MESS of photos that are impossible to find!!!!!!

Apple out of business? Blasphemy!! ;)
If apple goes out of business the programs will not cease to exist. You can keep using iPhoto, or when the time comes to move on, just export all your photos using iPhoto, if using the dated file structure of the finder is too hard.

Tyler
Earendil

mdelaney123

Jul 24, 2004, 01:22 PM

What I would like is to have iPhoto create the folder structure logically.

We should all do some research before we start debating stuff, this goes for me as well. I opened up my iPhoto Library to take a look at it, and here is what I found. (Picture removed)

This would appear to be what you are describing, no?

No... It looks like it, but when you import a photo into iPhoto, it does not break the photo's into the different dates that the picture was taken...

[b]Want to stop using iPhoto and use something else?

Then you'd have to import all your photos into the new program. Apple's file structure isn't going to automate this transition for you. Same as if you were moving from a different program to iPhoto...

No, not really... I Guess it depends on the program, but lets use Digital Image Suite as an example. It too uses a database, but if that database is lost or corrupted, it doesn't matter, because it ALSO stores the SAME INFORMATION (Keywords, ratings, captions, date changes) WITH THE EXIF INFO ON EACH PHOTO! (I am not yelling, just emphasizing (SP?))

I tested this: I deleted the DIS database and then restarted DIS... It simply rebuilt the database, looking at every photo to get its information... It took 15 minutes, but it did it.... I can't stress enough how valuable this is... There is just no excuse for iPhoto not to do this...

If apple goes out of business the programs will not cease to exist. You can keep using iPhoto, or when the time comes to move on, just export all your photos using iPhoto, if using the dated file structure of the finder is too hard.

Actually, I did (TRY TO) export all of my photos that I had in iPhoto when I moved to DIS... I lost all of my kewords, data changes, name changes, ratings, etc... Also, it took me FOREVER to do the export becuase I had to create the date directory structure that iPhot should have done in the first place...

I guess iPhoto is OK if you NEVER HAVE A NEED to use another program, or NEVER LOOSE your iPhoto database... I just cant take that risk...

kerb

Jul 29, 2004, 12:54 PM

Tiger's searching facility may be effectively incoporated into iPhoto solving some problems.

weldon

Jul 29, 2004, 03:12 PM

Tiger's searching facility may be effectively incoporated into iPhoto solving some problems.
The only problem I forsee with spotlight is that the meta-data isn't incorporated into the FS directly. It maintains a separate index and meta-data which could lead to the same situation where you have a bunch of iPhoto meta-data that isn't accessible to other applications. So you're stuck with iPhoto and screwed if that spotlight index gets corrupted.

The upside might be that other apps are written to use spotlight and access the metadata or that spotlight is so effective in the Finder that you don't really need an app for cataloging, just something to edit.

In either case, it'll be interesting to see how Spotlight handles iPhoto's method of saving the original and creating modified copies.

wdlove

Jul 29, 2004, 08:12 PM

Hopefully we will get iPhoto 4.0.2 with Mac OS 10.3.5. Maybe it will be Tuesday.

sjk

Jul 29, 2004, 09:00 PM

What I would like is to have iPhoto create the folder structure logically.

But MOST IMPORTANTLY, when I change the "date taken" I want the photo moved to that new date!!!!

Why have this type of file structure? What happens if you loose your iPhoto database? Want to stop using iPhoto and use something else? Apple goes out of business?I think you're focused on iPhoto's file structure as a kind of "pseudo-metadata" for managing photos if you lose (one 'o' :)) the iPhoto database.

In general, it's convenient for iPhoto albums to hide the underlying file/folder naming and organization of photo libraries, like iTunes playlists hide music folders/libraries.

Maybe what's missing is a system-ubiquitous interface to file/folder/metadata "objects" like albums and playlists so other applications can view/manage them, even without relying on the file/folder organization. That's one of the potentially interesting uses for Spotlight, if it can share relevant metadata with iPhoto and iTunes. Possibly an interoperability "glue" that reduces the need for export/import?

I don't want to be concerned with mundane issues like whether or not iPhoto moves an image file when its date is changed. It reminds me how interfaces using location-dependent file/folder storage metaphors seem awkward and outdated in comparison with alternatives for saving/finding/organizing data irregardless of its location.
... , but lets use Digital Image Suite as an example. It too uses a database, but if that database is lost or corrupted, it doesn't matter, because it ALSO stores the SAME INFORMATION (Keywords, ratings, captions, date changes) WITH THE EXIF INFO ON EACH PHOTO!But will all EXIF (meta)data stored directly in the image file be compatible with other applications besides DIS? For example, there's no explicit EXIF field for ratings metadata so maybe DIS encapsulates it in the user comment?

Wardofsky

Jul 30, 2004, 01:41 AM

I used iPhoto for a bit, then switched over to iView (http://iview-multimedia.com).
It's great if you take snapshots but it just doesn't work for me ('specially the file system) so iView was the better choice (plus it can handle other media).

JFreak

Jul 30, 2004, 06:44 AM

weldon

Jul 30, 2004, 09:33 AM

iphoto library will not be fixed with better search feature of the operating system. yes, you might find your photos easier, but you already can do that via the iphoto app. the greatest problem of iphoto is the cluttered library and metadata organization, which should be fixed pronto.
Well, the changes to the OS we are talking about would fix the metadata organization issue if it is implemented correctly. The meta-data that Spotlight uses could possibly be available to other applications. Right now, all we have heard about is that Tiger (10.4) will allow applications to "publish" meta-data about their files to Spotlight, but not exactly how one might use Spotlight technology from within an application. Maybe someone that has the Tiger Preview and SDK's will be able to comment in more depth.

And what is the problem with the library filesystem organization? What do you want iPhoto to do here?

not fixing the library and trying to solve the problem with os search feature sounds so microsoftish. "let's not fix it, let's just go the easy way and implement another feature to the system so users won't luckily notice the real problem." sheesh... i cannot think of any other apple software where the data/file organization is so screwed!
This criticism is so out of context that it sounds idiotic. No one at Apple is saying that they aren't going to make improvements to iPhoto. They are talking about Tiger and saying that they will make some improvements to the filesystem to provide rich meta-data and fast searching across many applications. This will, in the long run, provide better meta-data support for any photo cataloging/editing app that you wish to use and might allow one to switch apps without losing any meta-data (ratings, keywords, etc.). I think that was one of your complaints earlier.

JFreak

Jul 30, 2004, 01:35 PM

operating system level search is meant for making it easier to find files from your hard drives, yes. but that's a bad excuse for not organizing files intelligently in the first place. i want to be able to find what i'm looking for without such a search capability in the first place, and then, if i have several terabytes of data, i might want to ease my burden by letting the operating system to search it for me.

if the data files are BADLY organized, the operating system level search algorithm is only a half truth. it may or may not find what you're looking for if the files are placed randomly. BUT... if the files are organized nicely (as in itunes music library) the chances of finding what you're looking for are A GREAT DEAL BIGGER.

itunes music library folder only contains music files. iphoto library contains metadata, too. iphoto library will have to be fixed - there shouldn't be anything else than image files in the iphoto library. period. apple WILL HAVE TO fix this if they want to claim that osx is "the digital hub". what's that? currently something that you cannot find your photos without iphoto app.

sjk

Jul 30, 2004, 05:14 PM

Maybe someone that has the Tiger Preview and SDK's will be able to comment in more depth.Whatever's in line with the NDA. Some of us paying for ADC memberships don't think it's too cool others are freely violating NDAs.

AppleMatt

Jul 30, 2004, 05:29 PM

Well...there's not too much of July left is there?
Perhaps next tuesday will be an update-tuesday.

AppleMatt

sjk

Jul 30, 2004, 05:59 PM

operating system level search is meant for making it easier to find files from your hard drives, yes. but that's a bad excuse for not organizing files intelligently in the first place.What does it mean that files are "intelligently" organized? Juggling files/folders to do that is an increasing pita.

I enjoy freedom from thinking about the location of information when working with the DEVONthink database, yet it can be "intelligently" organized into items/groups that appear as virtual files/folders. There's no underlying filesystem hierarchy imposing its organization on me. Export/import to/from traditional files/folders is available if necessary and that's getting more transparent.

Hierarchical storage organization will become more of an arbitrary convenience rather than a structural necessity as systems/interfaces evolve with an increasingly chaotic information culture.

JFreak

Jul 31, 2004, 05:38 AM

Hierarchical storage organization will become more of an arbitrary convenience rather than a structural necessity as systems/interfaces evolve with an increasingly chaotic information culture.

that's exactly the "microsoftish" way to think about the problem. true, file system hierarchy loses its importance all the time, but it is still there and quality apps should have quality data storage too.

itunes is in this aspect a lot better (library folder only contains music files, and the album data is stored elsewhere). there just is no reason why not to demand the same quality from other apps - apple has shown that it is able to do things right, but has failed to do so with iphoto. i want that to be changed...

Wonder Boy

Aug 1, 2004, 11:57 PM

well, it's august and no update. maybe the week of the 2nd.

JDOG_

Aug 2, 2004, 01:13 AM

Self-made Subfolders (like the one at the top of the sourcelist), and colorization of albums for organization (like what came back with panther) would be peachy keen with me. Maybe they're saving it for Tiger...wouldn't be the least bit suprised about that one.

In case you're lacking imagination..I'm talking about this subfolder thing like this for everything else:

MacUnit

Aug 2, 2004, 04:05 PM

well, it's august and no update. maybe the week of the 2nd.

Its out. See page 1.

Mechcozmo

Aug 4, 2004, 11:30 AM

If there are all these complaints about iPhoto, why dosn't someone suggest another file-storage system?

sjk

Aug 4, 2004, 02:15 PM

that's exactly the "microsoftish" way to think about the problem.Which is intended to imply ...? Good to know they're "thinking different". :D

true, file system hierarchy loses its importance all the time, but it is still there and quality apps should have quality data storage too.
I never said hierarchical file/storage systems don't still exist, only that there are growing disadvantages to relying on that physical structure too rigidly. You've already said they're a hinderance to your organizational style when you've used iPhoto. And I've already agreed that's an issue and am openly considering different ways to resolve that in the most versatile ways.

If there are all these complaints about iPhoto, why dosn't someone suggest another file-storage system?
One that doesn't necessitate the use of hierarchies but simply provides them as one of several different kinds of virtual organization abstraction when useful and desired. Sure. :)

macsrus

Aug 7, 2004, 01:23 PM

well that update didnt survive long

mustangnc1

Aug 11, 2004, 07:51 PM

Wait, i dont understand why my version is 4.0.3(4H2). hummm.

weldon

Aug 11, 2004, 10:50 PM

Wait, i dont understand why my version is 4.0.3(4H2). hummm.
Well, if that's a serious question... you're on 4.0.3 because Apple released that update a couple days after 4.0.2 to fix some bugs.

HipNFly

Aug 31, 2004, 06:09 PM

yes, makes sense now. Transferring high-res images through BT would be comparable to transferring music, file sizes can average around 4-6 Mb. Doesn't sound like fun waiting for that.

Moving to next-in-kin wired/wireless technology, there's Wireless Firewire (that just sounds weird). What is power consumption on that? And what are the theoretical vs. actual data rates?

Just being curious. Sorry to further perpetuate the off-topic.

OK, that makes sense to me--high-res images over Bluetooth would be a pain.

But what about low-res phone cam images? I have a Nokie 6600 (Bluetooth camera phone) and would LOVE to have iPhoto import the images from the phone.

Any ideas on how to do this? :confused: