Whats the best software to store pictures?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by yogininomad, Jul 27, 2008.

  1. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2008
    #1
    Hi, getting tired of iphoto. can anyone suggest me which one to choose between adobe photoshop or aperture. I am using aperture at the moment as a trial, still learning. can anyone tell me if adobe photoshop is great to store photos?
    thanks a lot guys
     
  2. Moderator emeritus

    robbieduncan

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Location:
    London
    #2
    Well for storing photos Photoshop is 100% no use at all: it's not for storing or organising photos, it's for altering and improving them. You might want to take a look at Adobe Lightroom though...
     
  3. macrumors 6502

    wgilles

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2008
    #3
    If you have a Mac, get Aperture. It's about 100 bucks cheaper than Lightroom and is getting a lot of praise after version 2 came out. I use it and I love it. Don't get me wrong, I still use Photoshop, but for organizing and simple editing Aperture rocks.
     
  4. macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Location:
    Redondo Beach, California
    #4
    It would help a whole lot if you told us WHY you don't like iPhoto. I'd hate to recomend something that has the same feature that you dislike in iPhoto.

    As between Aperture and Photoshop that's easy. Photoshop is simply not designed for organizing photos. But PS CS3 does some bundled with abother adobe application called "Bridge". Bridge works like a "super finder" or image browsers and does let you search based on Metadata. You can try out most Adobe products for 30 days. Bridge is very simple and easy to understand.

    That said. I use and recommend Aperture but it does have a learning curve and requires that you study and read and watch Apple's tutorial videos.

    iPhoto is the best thing for most people. Would be good to know why you don't like it.
     
  5. macrumors 68000

    krye

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Location:
    USA
    #5
    I used to use iPhoto, but I found photo management to be extremely limited. Photos are stored in "Events". That's it. You can't store events inside events. So for example, if you had 10 vacation events, and 10 birthday events, you'd be staring at 20 evens in no particular order. It would be nice to have 2 events: Vacations and Birthdays. Inside the one event are all your Vacation events, and the other, your birthday events. But sadly, with iPhoto, this can't be done.

    You need the photo management that Aperture 2 can offer. You can put your pictures in Projects, which is similar to Events. You can then sort your Projects into folders, and subfolders.

    Projects vs. Events:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    With iPhoto, I find it hard to find an Event when I have to scroll through 500 events containing over 23,000 pictures and hope that the Event I want "jumps" out at me. With Aperture 2's "Finder-like" approach, it's so much easier to locate pictures by the name of project/folder.
     
  6. macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Location:
    USA
    #6
    No, that is not "it." Photos may be placed in "Events." Photos may be placed in albums. You may place a photo into more than one "Event" or "Album."
     
  7. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2005
    Location:
    Nashville, TN, USA
    #7
    Don't manage via Events. Create folders ("Vacation") and then albums from the events ("Summer 2007", "Winter 2008") and put those albums into the vacation folder. And/or use smart folders and keywords. Then you can find ANY poto with just a couple of clicks. Even easier. iPhoto is made to be an organizational app, you just need to learn to use it that way. It is great at what it does!
     
  8. macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Location:
    Redondo Beach, California
    #8
    The way to address this in iPhoto is to use smart albums. You need to tag your images with keywords and comments in some systematic way. then you make a smart album called say "dogs" and another one called "cats" and "fish" and so on and them place these in an "anamals" folder. You might also make smart albums based on client names or subject name ot type of photo. You can next albums and smart albums inside folders and foldrs inside folders. Each picture can be inside any number of albums at the same time but still only one copy is on the disk.

    Aperture does offer even more flexibility but both allow a kind of "tangled nesting" that can e as complex as you want.
     
  9. macrumors 68000

    krye

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Location:
    USA
    #9
    Yeh, but doing it that way, you have to constantly make sure that every photo you import goes into a smart album. That sounds like a lot of extra work. I like iTunes, instead of just looking at "Music", you'd have to make sure that every song is in some sort of playlist, Maybe I don't want to have to tag 23,000 picture. Maybe I just want all the photos from July in one folder. If you focus is constantly looking at Smart Albums, what happens when photo by accident don;t end up in an album. THese photos get "lost". Maybe I just don't have a full understanding of the benefit of albums. Just seems like a lot of extra work for something that Aperture just "does".

    Besides, I wanted to make the move to Aperture 2 because I am getting a DSLR within the next few months. So I wanted to go "Pro" anyway.
     
  10. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2008
    Location:
    Beauce, Québec
    #10
    You make a smart album which "is not - any" (not sure about the terms, but ...). So all the pix which are not in any aother album are in this one.
     

Share This Page