iLife and iWork '06? Front Row?

[JFreak]

Why does it make more sense? Why not do both -- have a catalog and store the metadata in the EXIF that is already there?

Because computers are stupid and the software written by error-prone humans is not so much more clever either. Apple is wise in taking the route of less possible errors, and even then they have a lot of bug fixing going on. It is a good thing to decide to use one scheme and then get the most out of it. If you want to use software that has different design philosophy, then use different software.

1. Store the photos in the library in a LOGICAL format. iTunes does it, so should iPhoto.

It is perfectly logical to store photos in a year/month/day directory structure; that is, assuming that you think about dates the same way the rest of the universe does.

2. If you are not going to do #1, then give the user the option to use their own directory structure.

That's something you could give Apple feedback. iTunes does it, so iPhoto could do it as well. iTunes has default behaviour of keeping library organised, and they could keep iPhoto defaulting to that as well. I'm not objecting to that.

As it is now, iPhoto stores your photos in a dis-organized, MESS of a directory!!!

It's not a mess. I have never seen messed up iPhoto library. Thumbnails maybe, but the actual photo files are nicely organised; and besides, the design philosophy of iPhoto is such that the user SHOULD NOT CARE about where the photo files are, as the iPhoto app is the interface of managing photos. Made for in-laws.

I know you said that you have backups, but heaven forbid you loose your catalog AND your backup fails! It would take an EXPERT months to get their photos out of that directory and back into an organized format!

Well, then... You can consider me a super-duper-mega-hyper-guru expert as I just did that in seconds. I only had to select iPhoto library root folder and search for all .JPEG files, and then drag all those photos to iPhoto again. When doing such import iPhoto examines the EXIF data and arranges the imported photo files accordingly.

3. When I change the date of a photo, add a keyword, caption, rating... Store that information in the EXIF of the file. THE FIELDS ARE ALREADY THERE to do this!

Give feedback to Apple. I'm not objecting to this. If they decide to implement that feature (which is totally nonexistent to the user) iPhoto can still keep using its catalog for all its operations; however, I like the idea of keyword auto-backups.

Again, if you only store this information in a catalog, you a running a BIG risk. You are also trusting that you will use iPhoto for the rest of your life! If not, again, you have LOST ALL YOUR WORK, and worse, have a HUGE task just to get your photos out of that gosh-darn Catalog!!!!

The vast majority of iPhoto user base are already either assuming they use it "forever" or not caring about the keywords. They just manage photos and consider keywords some kind of extra feature. They are just overwhelmed about the fact that iPhoto can automatically recognise dates of photos without having that orange burned date visible in the photo.

catalog is a single point of failure, and if gone, all of my work would be lost

Do you realise that this is true in whatever you do with computers? Have you ever lost important data? It just happens randomly, and that's why all important data needs to be backed up. No matter what it is. If it's important to you, you back it up. Twice. No exceptions. Do you go crazy when you realise that the thousands of songs you have rated in iTunes depend on the iTunes catalog? Or that you lose all your apps' settings if you have to re-install the operating system and create a new user for yourself? If there's anything of importance to you, BACK IT UP and do not fear of losing it. According to Mr. Murphy, you will lose whatever important things you haven't backed up, and if you do, you can only blame yourself for not making backups. If you value your data, you back it up. Did I make myself clear enough?

I stopped using iPhoto immediatly and went back to using my own directories for organization. I am STILL TRYING to get those photos out of that darn iPhoto Library.

So do yourself a favor and DECIDE what you want to do and then do it. First you have designed a system for yourself, then you abandon it and use iPhoto's, then you abandon it and convert your library to something else again. Isn't that a great deal more work than just doing a backup? Sorry, but you're just acting stupid. It seems that you are implementing changes to your workflow just for the sake of changing things; you suffer from the PC upgraders' syndrome...

iPhoto has the potential to be a REALLY GREAT program. I like the books, the ease of use, the integration with iMovie and iDVD... But man, I will NOT use it for its intended purpose: To organize photos!

Why not? It already is a great program. If it gets really great on next revision, that's ok. It already is good in organising photos, which you need to back up anyway; so why it seems to be so much overhead to also back up the catalog?

Imagine...

If an old-skool film photographer has tons of photos organised in albums, having own room full of book shelves for each year of photos, and so on, and that guy has a catalog book about his photos; don't you think that the guy would take care about his catalog book? Would you think that the old-skool guy would somehow assume that the "rooms" magically retain that information and whenever he walks into one, he just remembers where his things are? If he has taken thousands of photos each year for several decades, how can he remember without a catalog? That catalog book would be very precious for him, even if it was just easily flammabe paper. He knows it and he takes care of it.

How on earth can you make it a problem when guys more pro than you have not had a problem with this "issue"? Surely it must be you, others can live with the need of a catalog.

Again, why not do both? Use a catalog and store the metadate in the EXIF?

I have no problem if you ask Apple to implement that redundancy. However, iPhoto has been designed to use its catalog, and that's what it will use as long as the design philosophy remains unchanged. Catalog is the primary database for iPhoto, and the EXIF data is only used during import. It works fine that way, also, some people prefer that the original photo file remains absolutely unchanged; that is, to think of original photo files as analog film frames, which are the ultimate backup of a photo. Again, a design philosophy and impossibility of serving all needs.

iPhoto does NOT store files in a year/month/day directory structure. In fact, the word 'structure' should not even be used in that statement! iPhoto uses what seems to be random, meaningless directories to store and organize your photos!

Yes, it does. If a photo file does not carry EXIF data, then the import date is used. There is a structure and that is a well organised one.

If you honestly and in a way that they would understand, explain to your in-laws what iPhoto is doing to their photos, I guarantee they would NOT want to use iPhoto.

Your story is valid until the last all-of-a-sudden. If the catalog corrputs and you examine the file structure, it makes perfect sense. First you see years, then you see months, and then you see days. There are photo files and other stuff, but you can easily identify which files are photos and which are not.

You might have a problem with the fact that not all directories contain photo files. I don't know if it's still like that, but in early versions anyway, iPhoto created a directory for each date that you USED it for whatever purpose. The directory for that day might have been left empty, or it might have contained only some minor changes, or you might have imported something into the folder. Whatever you did, you had a folder for the day you used iPhoto; however, as long as "the guy" doesn't get confused about "the extra box", why would you care? If it seems important for "the guy" and you get the pictures you ask for, do you have a need to tell "the guy" to operate differently?

iPhoto stores FILES by the DATE in a fixed structure, and then you arrange your PHOTOS to ALBUMS by your criteria. You might have a photo in as many albums you wish, or in none at all, and you still have them within your library. Think of the library as "the box where you stored your negatives" in analog era, and albums as the albums that people skimmed through. It makes perfect sense for most of the people.

 

[sigamy]

i'd be realy happy if this comes true - many people have been beggin for Front Row to be bundled with iLife and a optional remote

but i'd be more intrested in iMovie HD extras? exports are a pain for me - they should have (insted of Mail -homepage and Quicktime) export to H.264- with drop downs on size small medium large and custom and also the same for mail .

export to HD should also be an option aswell 480/720/1280

also some more effects would be nice - i'd say an nice Bluescreen/Greenscreen and a video size crop .

maybe the main window should be split into 2 like on FCP before and after

also more then 1 video track would be kinda nice aswell plus i would like more then 2 sound tracks ie like 5

I totally agree on the iMovie enhancements. I can't say how much I love iMovie and all of iLife. These apps really help me create some great memories of our kids.

Apple has been slow to add new effects into iMovie. I'm actually hoping for a set of special effects plugins similar to GarageBand JamPacks.

At least two video tracks is needed, 5 audio and a simple surround sound mixer similar to Pinnacle's Studio. I think more people have 5.1 surround systems than HD so I'd like to see this added to iMovie.

I love the easier export options idea. It's stupid that I have to use QuickTime's Expert settings and tweak sizes all the time depending on what I'm doing. we'll probably see an "export to iPod" button right up front.

I'd like to see a simple special effects and/or 3D app included in iLife. Something like EffectsLab (AlamDV) or an "AfterEffects Lite". I have plugins to create lightsabers but there are tons of people who don't know you can do this and I think it would be a big hit. But then there'd be that many more Star Wars and Matrix fan films out there...

iPhoto needs (as always) speed enhancements and improved web page, book and calendar creation tools. And let's hope they don't break anything like last year's infamous red eye mess.

Finally, it would be nice to see upgrade pricing from one prior verision. So if you have iLife 04 you have to pay full $79, if you have iLife 05 you can upgrade for $29 or $39.

 

[mdelaney123]

So do yourself a favor and DECIDE what you want to do and then do it. First you have designed a system for yourself, then you abandon it and use iPhoto's, then you abandon it and convert your library to something else again. Isn't that a great deal more work than just doing a backup? Sorry, but you're just acting stupid. It seems that you are implementing changes to your workflow just for the sake of changing things; you suffer from the PC upgraders' syndrome...

Hmmm.... I will just end the conversation to clear up your personal attack on me.

I am not afraid to abandon a process or application that is not working. I will try a new process or application that may be better than what I am doing.

(Heck, that is why I do all my video editing and DVD creation on a Mac.)

I don't see the point in sticking with a process no-matter-what.

Have you ever tried MS Digital Image Suite 2006?

 

[mdelaney123]

Apple has been slow to add new effects into iMovie. I'm actually hoping for a set of special effects plugins similar to GarageBand JamPacks.

Have you tried the effects and transitions by GeeThree? They are quite nice. I have been using them for several years and with many versions of iMovie. They have always provided free upgrades with each new version.

 

[sigamy]

This is VERY BASIC stuff here. As it is now, iPhoto stores your photos in a dis-organized, MESS of a directory!!! I know you said that you have backups, but heaven forbid you loose your catalog AND your backup fails! It would take an EXPERT months to get their photos out of that directory and back into an organized format!

Again, if you only store this information in a catalog, you a running a BIG risk. You are also trusting that you will use iPhoto for the rest of your life! If not, again, you have LOST ALL YOUR WORK, and worse, have a HUGE task just to get your photos out of that gosh-darn Catalog!!!!

iPhoto is dangerous for anyone who is even remotely serious about organizing their photos on a PC!

I would go so far as to say that iPhoto does the EXACT OPPOSITE of its intended purpose!

iPhoto does NOT store files in a year/month/day directory structure. In fact, the word 'structure' should not even be used in that statement! iPhoto uses what seems to be random, meaningless directories to store and organize your photos!

I hope you get my point... I don't understand your strong stance on thinking iPhoto is so great. iPhoto is the one rotten Apple in the iLife bunch.

I, for one, totally do not get your point. A MESS of a directory? How is your iPhoto library organized if it is not by Year/Month/Date? Please send a screen shot of your library structure. I'm missing something here. How else should iPhoto import your pics?

I've been using iPhoto since it came out and it is great at what it does.

And I guarantee that if I demo'ed iPhoto to 100 random grandparents and showed them the ease-of-use and power of iPhoto that 80% of them would be sold.

The only time I need to find a photo in my file structure is when I need to upload it to eBay or Craigslist. Even then it is not very difficult to find the file based on date. All other uses I have for photos--printing, emailing, post to .Mac, ordering prints--all of these are handled seamlessly in iPhoto. I don't need the Finder. I don't need to know where P18991007.jpg is stored on my computer. I could care less.

For all these people complaining that iPhoto doesn't give them control...you have been brainwashed by dealing with crap software on other platforms. Software that *forced* you to keep tight control because the software was poorly designed.

Forget using folders to organize your pics, forget thinking that you have to know what folder that pic of little Johnny is in. You don't have to care. Open iPhoto and use Albums, smart albums, ratings, keywords to find your pics. It's all there...forget the past. Make backups every month to DVD.

You man and a closet analogy is funny. I just typed every expense I had for the entire year in MS Excel. I calculated my current bank balance. This is like telling someone my bank balance and then them forgetting. Then Excel crashed. My file was lost. All my work was gone forever...

 

[sigamy]

Have you tried the effects and transitions by GeeThree? They are quite nice. I have been using them for several years and with many versions of iMovie. They have always provided free upgrades with each new version.

Yeah, I've seen there stuff very nice and probably a good value but a bit pricey. I'd like to be able to get smaller packs from them. I have Virtrix Arsenal for lightsabers and it is great. I've made a few movies of me and my 5yr old son battling it out!

 

[mdelaney123]

I, for one, totally do not get your point. A MESS of a directory? How is your iPhoto library organized if it is not by Year/Month/Date? Please send a screen shot of your library structure. I'm missing something here. How else should iPhoto import your pics?

I stand somewhat corrected here... The main problem is, as JFreak pointed out, if there is no EXIF data for a picture, iPhoto just uses the date the file was imported. While not bad, I really think that there should at LEAST be an option to choose the directory that the photos are placed in.

The only time I need to find a photo in my file structure is when I need to upload it to eBay or Craigslist. Even then it is not very difficult to find the file based on date.

Granted, if you start from scratch in iPhoto and have never taken a digital photo before-hand, you may be ok. But if you start changing and/or updating the dates of when a photo was taken (Say you scan in a school picture), you will quickly realize that it is VERY hard to find the photo. (If you try to find it via the file system.

I don't need the Finder. I don't need to know where P18991007.jpg is stored on my computer. I could care less.

How much better would it be if you knew that you could find the photo WITHOUT iPhoto? If you could search on a logical file name, or browse by a directory? Once you have 2-3K photos, many of which you have scanned or imported, I guarantee you will not be able to remember the date you imported them.

For all these people complaining that iPhoto doesn't give them control...you have been brainwashed by dealing with crap software on other platforms. Software that *forced* you to keep tight control because the software was poorly designed.

When I change album or artist information in iTunes, iTunes automatically moves the file to the proper directory in the Finder. When I change the name of a photo, or worse date of a photo in iPhoto, the file does not move.

Why is it done for iTunes and not iPhoto? Is one poorly designed? (iPhoto?)

 

[sigamy]

When I change album or artist information in iTunes, iTunes automatically moves the file to the proper directory in the Finder. When I change the name of a photo, or worse date of a photo in iPhoto, the file does not move.

Why is it done for iTunes and not iPhoto? Is one poorly designed? (iPhoto?)

Point taken.

This may get a bit off topic but here goes...For me the big difference is that metadata has always been a big part of the MP3 spec since the beginning via tags. Since very early on the media player apps used tags to display the who/what/when info about the file.

For photos it has envolved differently and it is still evolving. I'm speaking about typical consumers here. Soccer moms and grandparents. For the past few years it was enough to just have the pictures loaded--somewhere--on the computer. To find out about the picture you'd just open it. That was almost the metadata, viewing the picture itself would let you know "that's Johnnys bday" and maybe you'd have the date from import.

I know this isn't your argument but it is related. When dealing with images--even if you use Finder or Windows Explorer--most people switch to thumbnail view to find an image. They actually view the image. It makes sense to do that more so, maybe, than to use metadata to find an image. Why? Because it is hard to fine tune the metadata of an image into a perfect filter. How many shots did you take during Suzie's 5th bday? 20? 50? How do you differentiate these with metadata from the camera? You can't. So you move to keywords. "suzie and cake" "suzie and mom" "suzie and dad". It gets tiresome.

For music, the ID3 tags come from the source (or CDDB/Gracenote), are simple, and pretty much completely descriptive. Genre, artist, album, track, composer, year. To find a particular music file we use the metadata first to navigate and reduce the list of candidates. Then we see that we have two versions of "With or Without You" by U2. We probably then listen to them to find the album cut vs. the live cut.

Normal users are just now starting to realize the importance of good metadata in photos. Pros have known this for years but it is just now coming down to the consumer market.

Heck, I know many, many people in the "casual user" crowd who have had a digital camera for over a year and still have not downloaded a single image into their computer. They still view pictures as something to print out once and have a physical copy of and store in a physical photo album or shoebox. They still don't "get it".

 

[Applexilef]

I'm not sure if this has been said before, I only read the first two pages or so...

My guess is that the remote will not be bluetooth nor infrared, but just simple wireless internet. I'm not sure on the feasibility of this, but I think it makes much more sense considering the short range of bluetooth.

I think the remote will just be a wireless signal to the computer, that's it...

 

[JFreak]

How much better would it be if you knew that you could find the photo WITHOUT iPhoto? If you could search on a logical file name, or browse by a directory? Once you have 2-3K photos, many of which you have scanned or imported, I guarantee you will not be able to remember the date you imported them.

I have not meant to attack you personally. I'm only questioning your thinking about this, as you clearly think "one level too low". Logical file and directory naming scheme only gets you to a certain point, where it all begins to fall apart. You're still just browsing files. That's a level iPhoto tries to hide from the end user.

The end user (in-laws and such) only think about "photos" and never care about "files", which we both know must exist but are not important for the end user. As long as iPhoto can manage the "files", the end user does not care. He understands "photos", which iPhoto presents very well. As I said earlier, in digital photography the "files" are like "negatives" of analog photography, and they are not important when you think about your "photos" and arrange them into "albums". Negatives are just low-level information required to generate the "photo" that is kept in "album".

So...

You should really forget everything regarding low-level file management, let the system handle that. And once you have your files in the system (like negatives stored in a box), then just concentrate in organising your photos into albums according to whatever logic is meaningful to you. Actually, using iPhoto, you will never have to know that a photo is a file somewhere in the disk; if you need that file somewhere else, you can just simply drag it out of the iPhoto and drop to whatever you want to -- the system makes sure that the file goes to wherever you need it.

Photos. Not files. the hardest part of learning new tricks is un-learning the old ones.

 

[decksnap]

There's more than onetype of end-user.

Anyway- hey Jfreak- can you shed some light on an answer to my previous post? I want to figure out the deal with this. I am finding that spotlight comments don't work in iPhoto, and that they are indeed stripped from a file when imported into iPhoto. If we are really supposed to believe iPhoto is for organization, and spotlight is for quickly finding things, shouldn't they work together? As of now it seems extremely counterintuitive to have to either a) use an image browser that can't rename or appropriately organize source files and can't utilize Tiger's best feature, or b) forego iPhoto for the convenience of being able to use Spotlight.

Any insights?

 

[JFreak]

I am finding that spotlight comments don't work in iPhoto, and that they are indeed stripped from a file when imported into iPhoto. If we are really supposed to believe iPhoto is for organization, and spotlight is for quickly finding things, shouldn't they work together?

Send feedback to Apple; clearly they should work together. For some reason Spotlight was rushed into OSX so expect it to improve over time (10.5.0 the latest) -- but yes, the waiting is frustrating.

IF I had to guess, I'd say over time Apple is going to focus OSX file handling more towards Spotlight than to Finder. It will become powerful. It's just currently work in progress, but that must change before Microsoft's is released.

 

[iminimac]

I hope Frontrow would be included in ilife 06 with a remote (but what about buying a 5 licence pack? would you get 5 remotes?)

For iWork I would love lots of little apps to help you aswell

iPhoto - Updated (storage of photos)
iMovie- Updates especially about exporting in HD
iDVD - Updated with some more templates
iTunes - Is good but theres always little things to improve on
Frontrow - Would love this as a feature to show off to my friends and always good for a party or with friends round.

Pages - I have to say I love pages. The best thing about it is the templates I think as I always use pages when i need to present a project in a neat and cool way. I would love more templates.

Keynote - Again more templates. Microsofts Powerpoint has about twice as many so there should be a larger choice for mac.

Numbers- A spreadsheet application. Would need to be very good like excel. Would also have to include graphing or have that availble in another application (Grapher) maybe.

Draw- A apple version of paint. It would be good for younger kids to do drawings and also when I have to do a diagram and like little picture I have nothing to do it on. I just need something simple and that will work.

 

[mdavey]

Pages - I have to say I love pages. The best thing about it is the templates I think as I always use pages when i need to present a project in a neat and cool way. I would love more templates.

Keynote - Again more templates. Microsofts Powerpoint has about twice as many so there should be a larger choice for mac.

Numbers- A spreadsheet application.

...and adopt OpenDocument as the native file format for iWorks.

Draw...

Just port Gimp to Mac OS X. Yea, I know someone has already.

 

[themacmaestro]

I am using Front Row on my Powerbook already. it is an awesome app. I hope they do insert it in iLife.

 

[mdelaney123]

As long as iPhoto can manage the "files", the end user does not care.

This end user you talk about will care if they ever want to use another program to organize their files, or, gasp, want to 'switch' back to windows, or get a corrupt catalog file and don't have a backup.

As I said earlier, in digital photography the "files" are like "negatives" of analog photography, and they are not important when you think about your "photos" and arrange them into "albums". Negatives are just low-level information required to generate the "photo" that is kept in "album".

I tend to STRONGLY disagree on this point.

Before digital, I could see where negatives were considered unimportant. They were just filed in a shoe-box and forgotten after the pictures were developed.

But, with digital, these "negatives" ARE THE PICTURES. I think that many people don't print the pictures at all. I think that many people view the pictures via slideshows, screen savers, and on their TV via Frontrow or Media Center... That being the case, I think it is VERY important that you the user know where your pictures are, that you can get to them independant of an application, and that they are future proofed in case that application is no longer available.

 

[ingenious]

Getting MS Office with Access is a higher priced version of the MS Office suite.

Apple already has a database - FileMaker. People who don't need a database shouldn't be forced to pay for one. And unless Apple does a FileMaker lite, it won't be included in iWork. I can't see Apple making yet another database program. Although it would be nice for the iWork programs to properly link to FileMaker databases.

It would just be nice for Apple to make whatever database applications Access-compatible and for MS to release Access for Mac (along with Publisher [I know, I know, but some people need it], Visio, Onenote, etc.).

 

[ingenious]

Also, they need to completely overhaul the way the photos are stored in the library folder. Currently there is NO rhyme or reason to it... Again, if you loose your catalog, you have a REALLY BIG mess on your hands...

Um, aren't they stored by date? Mine always are (year, month, date)....?!?!

 

[ingenious]

If only Apple would integrate Grapher into iWork, making it a real replacement for the minimal graphing options in Keynote.

Yeah, I like the seperate, usually non-bloated application strategy most of the time, but once in awhile, there needs to be integration..... (Mail, iCal, Address Book stricter integration, whole system stricter integration)...

 

[JFreak]

with digital, these "negatives" ARE THE PICTURES. I think that many people don't print the pictures at all.

No.

These "negatives" (files) are the low-level information that is used to generate the photo; whether the photo is printed to paper or viewed on a screen, it doesn't matter -- the file is the negative, and the photo is what you can look at and point with your finger. You don't look at files, do you?

I think that many people view the pictures via slideshows, screen savers, and on their TV. That being the case, I think it is VERY important that you the user know where your pictures are

You look at the photo which is generated to the medium of your choice: that's where digital (file) offers more choice than analog (negative), as analog negative can only be processed to become a paper positive, but as you yourself said, digital file can be presented in many ways in addition to the paper print. A digital album generates your photos every time you look at it, and the photos are just as crisp as the day they were taken. An analog photo album however is only generated once and analog photos tend to lose their color definition over time, not to mention scratches and such which add to the damage. Anyway, if you can find the negative "shoe box", you can generate new photos which possibly look better than the damaged one. The difference between analog and digital photo is that analog photo is permanent and digital photo is destroyed when you close the digital album. You need to find the negative "shoe box" (photo file library) every time you want to view the digital photo, so that's where people tend to get confused thinking that the file is the photo, because the file feels almost as tanglible than the analog photo paper. That's still wrong thinking, but very understandable mistake.

But if you can show me a photo just by giving me a photo file via email/cdrom, then I admit being wrong. Until this; however, I have always needed an application to generate a photo from the file before I can look at it.

 

[Porchland]

Hopefully iWork '06 will include Spreadsheet, Database, and Drawing/Painting programs needed to finally put AppleWorks to rest. They don't have to be up to office standards, they just to need to be better than MS works.

Whoo, there's something to aspire to.

 

[G wizz]

The thing I dont like about iwork in keynote is you cant have multiple music, you only have the option of 1 audio sound which has to repeat. I would like to see multiple audio that you can change like in Imovie and not have to get music to match the length of the video. Or am I missing something.

 

[skythefly13]

Well it better be...

All I know is for the 90 dollars I just spent on the Universal dock, apple remote and also the AV cable, it better be infrared.

The thing that gets me is why would they put the wireless remote out on the market for sale when its basically only for front row iMacs right now. All it does with the universal dock is change volume, skip tracks and play/pause whatevers playing on the ipod. It basically sucks right now because you cant even navigate through menus. Why would they sell a product with a menu button when the menu button cant even be used unless its with an iMac?

All I hope is that the apple remote will be used, or the universal dock could be used as a infrared receiver. Either one of those will make me just happy as can be.

 

[aswitcher]

The thing that gets me is why would they put the wireless remote out on the market for sale when its basically only for front row iMacs right now. .

Since most TV.s VCRs, DVD players, STBs etc use IrDA, its a safe bet Apple will be pushing that out in all their machines next year.