Best Alternative to iPhoto 11

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by kingc0bra, Dec 21, 2012.

  1. macrumors member

    kingc0bra

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2012
    #1
    Just got my 2012 macbook pro, and really surprised that even with the latest technology and speeds, that iphoto is slowwwww

    It takes time to scroll thru the pics, and for pics to load, I thought I would at least be able to see my photos instantly...

    I will be adding ram and ssd in the near future, but I also know this is a problem with the software itself..

    What do you guys recommend as an alternative?
     
  2. macrumors 68040

    MCAsan

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #2
    two main alternatives: Aperture and Adobe Lightroom.

    No substitute for CPU, GPU, fast drives and a gracious plenty of memory.
     
  3. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Location:
    usa
    #3
    Photoshop Elements , but I've never compared it with iPhoto as to speed . Like MCAsan said , a lot of it is a hardware thing .
     
  4. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    #4
    Lightroom. Great for file/database management, optimizing, exporting.
     
  5. thread starter macrumors member

    kingc0bra

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2012
    #5
    well I would think that buying a BRAND NEW laptop and running Apples' own software would allow me to use the software without any hiccups...I don't think that's high expectations now is it?

    I barely got the newest macbook pro model and I already need to upgrade its ram and hdd?!?!
     
  6. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2011
    #6
    I'm not trying to be a snob here (and I'm sorry if it comes off that way), but by the sounds of it you purchased the entry level MacBook Pro with a slow hard drive and only 4gigs of RAM. It's not really the model that will give you your pictures instantly. If you wanted that kind of performance you should have purchased a model with an SSD like the MBA or MBP Retina. Sorry, but this sounds like your putting unfair expectations on an entry level product. There no way you can expect a 5400rpm HD to be instant just because it's Apple's software. By that logic you should be able to run FCPX and Motion without issue, which is just not possible. Thats why they have higher end hardware. Sorry, but it sounds like you should have been more specific with your expectations when doing your research.

    Maybe see if you can exchange it?
     
  7. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2009
    #7
    alternative to iphoto

    Lightroom, non destructive edits, virtual copies, metadata, and great printing.
     
  8. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    #8
    If you have a Nikon DSLR: Capture NX, otherwise try any of the mentioned above.
     
  9. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Location:
    An Island in the Salish Sea
    #9
    Elements is not quite the same thing as iPhoto. Elements is an editor, that uses allows use of layers and editing down to the pixel level. However it does, by default, by replacing the original file with the edited file. It has no asset management capabilities.

    iPhoto is Digital Asset Manager, which also edits. The editing abilities are limited, compared to Elements, but the edits are 'non-destructive' - the original file is not altered. As well, iPhoto is far superior for handling multiple versions of the same image (e.g. a BW, a square crop, a pano crop, etc etc).

    You should not be choosing either iPhoto or Elements - but instead use them together, setting Elements as the external editor for iPhoto. This is true of for Lightroom, and Aperture as well (as DAMs)... they should be paired with an external editing application.
     
  10. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2011
    #10
    I think he justifies the performance based on the pricing.
     
  11. macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2011
    #11
    I have the entry level 13" 2011 MBP, and iPhoto is very fast despite a 90+ GB library of almost 30 000 pictures. The only times it becomes slow is when TimeMachine or Spotlight is running at the same time.
     
  12. macrumors 68040

    MCAsan

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #12
    These days I would not order any computer with less than 8GB and better still 16GB. Keep in mind that you will likely keep the machine for 3-5 years. What will the workload be on the CPU and memory years from now running new OSs and apps that will use up more and more resources?

    That is why I got our rMBPs with 16GB. If I were doing a regular MBP or 27" iMac I would order the min memory from Apple then upgrade it from OWC or other vendor to at least 16GB.
     

Share This Page